From AI Alerts to Accountable Decisions: A Governance Framework for Regulatory Compliance

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to manage regulatory and ethical compliance obligations. This paper examines AI’s role in regulatory compliance with particular attention to human oversight, accountability, transparency, employee competency, and organizational governance. It builds on existing scholarship on AI governance, regulatory technology, compliance risk identification, human oversight, and organizational AI readiness. It argues that increased reliance on AI can create an accountability gap when organizations lack effective human oversight and clearly defined responsibility. The paper also incorporates findings from a recent practitioner survey the author conducted. The survey findings reveal that human oversight, AI accuracy, and reliability are the top challenges to AI’s use for compliance. Respondents also identified privacy and data security, employee knowledge and training, unclear processes, and integration with existing systems as significant concerns.
Building on existing literature and the survey findings, the paper proposes the STAGE framework (Scan, Triage, Assess, Govern, and Evaluate) as a practical approach to maintaining human judgment and organizational accountability when integrating AI into regulatory compliance. STAGE does not treat AI as an independent decision-maker. Instead, it positions AI as a support tool that requires constant human verification and clear escalation paths. The framework focuses on whether organizations can use AI to identify risks while keeping qualified people responsible for interpreting alerts, making decisions, documenting actions, and correcting weaknesses.

regulatory compliance, AI governance, human oversight, compliance risk, corporate governance.

1. Agarwal, L. (2023). Defining organizational AI governance and ethics. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4553185 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act. 820 ILCS 42/5 (2025). https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/082000420K5.htm [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/1689. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Langer, M., Lazar, V., & Baum, K. (2026). On the complexities of testing for compliance with human oversight requirements in AI regulation. In B. Steffen (Ed.), Bridging the gap between AI and reality: AISola 2025 (pp. 160–169). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-07132-3_11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Lawrence, C. (2026). The AI implementation paradox: Organizational contradictions and the emergence of the AI-native organization. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6297038 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. OECD. (2023). Advancing accountability in AI: Governing and managing risks throughout the lifecycle for trustworthy AI. OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 349. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/2448f04b-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Ogedengbe, A. O., Jejeniwa, T. O., Olawale, H. O., Friday, S. C., & Ameyaw, M. N. (2023). Enhancing compliance risk identification through data-driven Control Self-Assessments and surveillance models. Shodhshauryam, International Scientific Refereed Research Journal, 6(4), 224–248. https://doi.org/10.32628/SHISRRJ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Oluwagbemigun, M. (2024). Enforcement vs. incentives: Assessing the EPA's approach to sustainable industrial compliance. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5687147 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Oluwagbemigun, M. (2025). Evaluating corporate reporting obligations under Nigeria's 2021 Climate Change Act: Corporate compliance challenges and strategic measures. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Research, 13(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.37745/ijeer.13/vol13n11321 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Oluwagbemigun, M. (2026). AI and regulatory compliance: Practitioner survey dataset [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22217897 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Onnen, A. (2026). Success conditions for organizational AI implementations: The role of digital and AI-related competency models. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6871138 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ooms, W., Cools, L., Gils, T., & Heymans, F. (2025). From policy to practice: Prototyping the EU AI Act's human oversight requirements. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5196091 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Mäntymäki, M., Minkkinen, M., Birkstedt, T., & Viljanen, M. (2022). Defining organizational AI governance. AI and Ethics, 2(4), 603–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00143-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Salomão de Oliveira, N. (2026). Compliance by algorithm: Regulatory technology, corporate accountability, and the institutional reconstruction of financial governance. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7159958 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Tabassi, E. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]