AI 中文总结
针对组织规则导致AI失效的问题，提出O-I-B-A-R框架用于外部化缺失的决策边界，同时指出需设计带成本与激励的组织干预以平衡故障历史的坦诚度问题。
AI 中文摘要
AI系统正越来越多地通过政策、流程、手册、提示及其他明确的工作表征形式进入组织。然而正式描述往往与实际情境中的实践存在差异，捕获的“知其然”可能缺失专家在判断不确定时使用的情境性“知其所以然”。我们认为，一类反复出现的组织AI故障部分源于社会技术接口处的知识表征问题：AI接收的是流程，而组织则基于流程加上负向边界、运行时判断、责任分配和学习历史开展运作。我们引入O-I-B-A-R（OPEN、IS、BUT、ACTION、RESULT），这一用于外部化这些缺失决策边界的框架。IS记录判断成立的情况；BUT记录包含超出IS逻辑否定信息的具体失败案例；将可比的成功与失败案例分解为最小必要的变化变量，该变量成为带值的决策维度；弃权（不执行）表示维度已知但当前值未解决的状态，明确需测量、询问、检索或移交人类处理的内容；RESULT确认边界、调整阈值或揭示新维度。事件可生成新维度，未解决值可定义人机交接，反馈可扩展决策空间。我们还指出一种社会技术张力：持久且可归因的故障历史可能抑制有用边界知识所依赖的坦诚度，因此外部化必须被设计为带有实际成本与激励的组织干预措施。
英文摘要
AI systems increasingly enter organizations through policies, procedures, playbooks, prompts, and other explicit representations of work. Yet formal descriptions often differ from situated practice, and captured know-what can omit the contextual know-how experts use when judgments are uncertain. We argue that a recurring class of organizational AI failures arises partly from a knowledge representation problem at the sociotechnical interface: the AI receives the procedure, while the organization operates on the procedure plus negative boundaries, runtime judgments, responsibility assignments, and learning history. We introduce O-I-B-A-R (OPEN, IS, BUT, ACTION, RESULT), a scaffold for externalizing these missing decision boundaries. IS records when a judgment holds. BUT records a concrete failure containing information beyond the logical negation of IS. Comparable success and failure cases are decomposed toward a minimally sufficient changing variable, which becomes a value-bearing decision dimension. A suspension represents the state in which the dimension is known but its current value is unresolved, specifying what must be measured, asked, retrieved, or escalated to a human. RESULT confirms a boundary, shifts a threshold, or exposes a new dimension. Incidents can generate new dimensions, unresolved values can define human-AI handoffs, and feedback can expand the decision space. We also identify a sociotechnical tension: durable and attributable failure histories can suppress the candor on which useful boundary knowledge depends. Externalization must therefore be designed as an organizational intervention with real costs and incentives.
