AI 中文总结
本文提出一个形式化框架，在安全关键工作流单元层面分配AI参与与保障，区分多种保证类型，并通过17单元翼梁分析案例验证了选择性AI参与和证据处理。
AI 中文摘要
生成式AI能够产生工程制品，但仅凭生成本身并不能决定这些制品是否以及如何进入安全关键工作流。本文开发了一个形式化框架，用于在单个工作流单元层面分配AI参与与保障。每个单元都有一份参与与保障记录，涵盖其工程需求、经批准的操作形式化（如适用）、适用机制、回退方案（如适用）、证据义务及适用保证，以及部署就绪状态。该框架区分了确定性验证、统计校准准入、由AI建议支持的授权人工判断、对AI生成制品的授权人工裁决、保留的确定性工具路径以及明确的非参与；这些安排承载不同类型的保证，而非共同尺度上的等级。该框架还将形式化保真度与验证器健全性分离，提供分阶段的分类与就绪程序，并在重复总体假设下推导出将门控AI辅助单元与现有流程进行比较的条件。我们在一个已执行的17单元翼梁结构分析工作流中实例化并应用了该框架，该工作流结合了确定性门控的AI生成CAD、保留的确定性计算和人工判断。AI生成的CAD程序通过了全部23项确定性检查，并在首次尝试时获得准入。在预先声明的网格收敛证据不足的情况下，有利的应力幅值不足以通过应力准则；这些准则转而交由工程判断处理。该案例展示了单元层面的选择性AI参与和明确的证据处理；未声称工作流层面的可靠性、认证、结构安全或生产力。
英文摘要
Generative AI can produce engineering artefacts, but generation alone does not determine whether or how those artefacts should enter safety-critical workflows. This paper develops a formal framework for assigning AI participation and assurance at the level of individual workflow units. Each unit has a participation and assurance record covering its engineering requirement, an approved operational formalization where applicable, the applicable mechanism, fallback where applicable, evidence obligations and the applicable guarantee, plus a deployment-readiness status. The framework distinguishes deterministic verification, statistically calibrated admission, authorized human judgement supported by AI advice, authorized human adjudication of AI-produced artefacts, retained deterministic tool paths and explicit non-participation; these arrangements carry different kinds of guarantee rather than levels on a common scale. The framework also separates formalization fidelity from verifier soundness, provides a staged classification and readiness procedure, and derives conditions for comparing a gated AI-assisted unit with an incumbent process under recurring-population assumptions. We instantiate and apply the framework in an executed 17-unit wing-spar structural-analysis workflow combining deterministically gated AI-generated CAD, retained deterministic computation and human judgement. The AI-generated CAD program passed all 23 deterministic checks and was admitted at the first attempt. Favourable stress magnitudes did not suffice to pass the stress criteria where the predeclared mesh-convergence evidence was insufficient; those criteria were instead referred to engineering judgement. The case demonstrates selective AI participation and explicit evidence handling at unit level; no claim is made of workflow-level dependability, certification, structural safety or productivity.
