CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.CYcs.AI2026-07-02

The Eticas AI Risk Taxonomy: Open Infrastructure for Operationalizing AI Audits

Gemma Galdon Clavell, Pablo Accuosto, Usman Gohar

The rapid deployment of AI systems across high-stakes domains has created urgent demand for standardized evaluation, yet the field remains fragmented across competing risk taxonomies that catalog risks without showing how an audit is executed. At least 74 AI risk taxonomies exist, and almost all stop at the catalog. The hard part of auditing is not naming a risk but operationalizing it: turning it into a test run against a real system, a measured value, a calibrated severity, and a defensible grade. This paper leads with that bridge. We present the operationalization layer Eticas has built and run, shown end to end on a single risk (PII leakage) against a public benchmark, and then the open taxonomy that makes the method scale. On GPT-4-0314, a disclosure risk that seven external frameworks require be controlled is measured at 0%, 51%, and 84% disclosure as adversarial conditioning increases, mapping through calibrated severity bands to a subcategory grade of E with a SYSTEMIC pattern. Around this example, the Eticas AI Risk Taxonomy v2.0.0 organizes 76 active subcategories across 10 categories and 20 sub-groups, with mappings to 18 external frameworks across compliance, reference, and academic tiers. Its category and sub-group layer is published under CC BY 4.0 as open semantic infrastructure with stable URIs and SKOS/JSON-LD distributions, and a worked subcategory example shows the operational layer down to its severity thresholds. The contribution is the demonstrated bridge from concept to graded finding, anchored by a clean separation of risks from the mechanisms by which they surface, and framed by an open-core model in which the conceptual scaffold is open and the methodology calibration is the practitioner layer. This is the infrastructure the AI auditing field needs: shared, open, and demonstrably operable.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.CYcs.AIcs.CR2026-07-02

Overview of Risk Assessment and Management for Intelligent Systems under the AI Act and Beyond

Javier Irigoyen, Roberto Daza, Aythami Morales, Julian Fierrez, Ruben Tolosana, Ruben Vera-Rodriguez, et al.

The society and emerging risk-based regulatory frameworks for AI underscore the need for rigorous risk assessment to ensure safe and reliable AI systems. In response to this imperative, this paper presents an overview of AI risk assessment (identification and analysis) and manage…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CYcs.AI2026-07-06

Open Problems in AI Incident Governance

Harleen Kaur Sidhu, Rebecca Scholefield, Nour Annan, Kevin Hernandez, Isabel Nieh Hou, Abdulrahman Alshaikhi, et al.

AI systems may produce failures after deployment that pre-deployment safety assessments do not anticipate. Managing these failures requires what we refer to as adequate \textit{AI incident governance}, where having good definitions, taxonomies, monitoring practices, reporting mec…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.HCcs.AIcs.CY2026-06-28

LLMography: Transforming Human-AI Conversations into Traceability, Oversight, and Auditability Indicators

Mohammed Bousmah

The growing use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in education, software engineering, academic writing, and technical documentation raises a key question: how can we evaluate not only AI-assisted outputs, but also the interaction process that produced them? Current debates often fo…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CYcs.AI2026-06-30

FLARE-AI: Flaw Reporting for AI

Shayne Longpre, Elaine Zhu, Carson Ezell, Avijit Ghosh, Sean McGregor, Kevin Paeth, et al.

Flaw reporting for deployed AI systems is fundamental to identifying system failures and improving AI safety. Yet the AI reporting ecosystem is fragmented: researchers who identify flaws often do not know what or where to report, and groups who receive reports rarely share them w…

View free PDFSource page