Co-constructing sociotechnical AI governance: participatory system mapping using algorithm registers

Algorithm registers have been championed as a means of providing transparency on the use of algorithms in public services. Yet potential publics differ in their expectations of what should be made transparent and how, as well as in their interest in and ability to parse the information currently published in the registers. Moreover, it remains unclear how these instruments can represent the sociotechnical systems in which these algorithms are embedded, and how system-level transparency can facilitate accountability. In this paper, we ask, what do algorithm registers reveal (and occlude) about the sociotechnical systems governing algorithmic systems, and how can diverse stakeholder perspectives inform a more pluralistic system-theoretic safety analysis? To do this, we probe the municipal algorithm register of a Dutch city through a case study of a decision-support tool for caseworkers' assessment of citizens' welfare benefits eligibility based on legal automation through a business rule engine. Through interviews, surveys, and participatory system mapping workshops (with municipal staff, civil society organisations, and ombudsmen, N=8), we seek to understand to what extent the register allows stakeholders to map the algorithmic system in question. These maps inform a System-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) that situates the register within a wider sociotechnical governance structure. Participants' contributions allow us to identify potential safety hazards which would not have been possible to see using the algorithm register alone, including benefits eligibility denial, system performance deterioration, and inability to contest wrongful decisions. By engaging both direct and indirect stakeholders, we reflect on the normative dimensions of algorithm governance efforts and how politics shape the practice of system safety analysis.

Decolonizing Linguistic Policies in Automated Speech Recognition: A Framework for Cross-Culturally Competent Speech AI

This paper focuses on automatic speech recognition (ASR) and ASR-mediated voice interfaces that shape access to public services, healthcare, and education. We argue that persistent failures for low-resource, Indigenous, and non-standard language varieties are not only technical errors, but also implicit linguistic policies that reproduce colonial language hierarchies. Drawing on linguistic capital, raciolinguistic ideology, language policy research, and decolonial computing, we show how data, metrics, and model priors determine whose voices become machine-legible. We introduce the Three Harms (3M) taxonomy---Misrecognition, Misalignment, and Mistrust---and a seven-layer situatedness model for linguistic diversity in ASR and ASR-mediated voice interfaces. We then propose a participatory framework and minimum audit protocol for culturally competent ASR, positioning affected communities as co-designers, evaluators, and governance partners.

Co-design of LLM-based preference agents: participation may drive overtrust

Large language models are increasingly used to simulate human preferences in research and practical applications, raising concerns about validation, misrepresentation, and exclusion. Co-designing agents with the people they represent is a promising way to address these concerns, but participation may also mask the problems it appears to solve. This paper explores that tension through a primarily qualitative study in which 12 participants co-designed personal preference agents in the domain of household energy, via a background survey, co-design interview, and validation survey. Participants engaged readily and mostly came to see their agents as representing them well. Independent validation, however, revealed mixed human-agent alignment, with agent responses markedly more homogeneous, decisive, and abstract than the human sample. I argue that participation and process transparency can act as an "overtrust engine" that promotes trust while concealing systematic misalignment with potential structural consequences at scale. I develop this as a core mechanism in participatory preference agent design, treating individual alignment not as a fixed state but as an enacted process.

How Formerly Incarcerated People Envision Technologies for Prison Parole

AI-driven algorithms and automated tools are increasingly embedded in the correctional landscape, shaping parole eligibility,release decisions, and surveillance. These tools are also often framed as objective, inevitable solutions to inefficiency andbias. Yet, these computational systems are rarely designed with input from justice-impacted individuals, which means theymight fail to address the real needs of incarcerated people. To address this gap, we surveyed 31 formerly incarcerated peopleabout their parole experiences and their visions for technologies that could support parole preparation. Contrary to dominantassumptions, participants did not imagine computational tools as instruments to dismantle the prison system, but as resourcesfor navigating power: translating complex parole concepts into culturally familiar terms, documenting personal transformationin board-legible ways, and recognizing the often-invisible labor of families. We argue that these imaginaries point towardtechnologies designed for strategic agency, where tools help incarcerated individuals and their families build the capacity tonavigate existing power structures in pursuit of freedom. We conclude by reframing computational tools for parole awayfrom surveillance and toward human-centered systems that support people in navigating carceral power structures.

Internal Pluralism and the Limits of Pairwise Comparisons

Local pairwise comparisons are a standard tool for learning how people want decision rules to work, e.g., in participatory design or alignment. However, their use builds in two strong assumptions: that local comparisons are sufficient evidence about how a person wants an automated decision rule to behave, and that people can always answer those comparisons decisively. We investigate how these assumptions may be compromised under internal pluralism: the idea that an individual evaluates decision rules according to multiple authoritative priorities about how the rule should behave. We provide a formal model of such pluralistic preferences over decision rules, which then lets us identify two distinct failures of forced local pairwise comparison data. First, priorities such as proportionality, egalitarianism, and equal treatment are inherently global: what they imply in one case can depend on what happens elsewhere, so local comparisons may fail to capture them. Second, even when priorities are representable locally, tension between strongly-held priorities can generate internal conflict, producing potentially costly behavioral distortions when comparisons are forced. We then use our model to investigate the alternative -- allowing people to report indecision -- and our findings suggest that doing so can considerably reduce the number of queries needed to learn preferences accurately. We conclude by describing how our model points toward preference-learning methods that elicit these priorities directly, yielding more faithful and interpretable accounts of what people value.

Editorial Alignment: A Participatory Approach to Engaging Editorial Expertise in LLM-mediated Knowledge Dissemination

The emergence of LLM-driven information services is reshaping the conditions under which public knowledge institutions operate, threatening to absorb the editorial function these institutions exist to exercise. While LLMs offer powerful new affordances for knowledge dissemination, editorial authority is challenged by pretrained LLMs that arrive already aligned with the values and dissemination strategies of their commercial developers. This paper investigates editor participation in re-aligning LLM interfaces to editorial standards through design workshops, in a case study where we design and implement an LLM-enabled encyclopedia interface with a Nordic public knowledge institution. We introduce editorial alignment as a design practice within Participatory AI, framing AI alignment as a design process and positioning the editorial standard as a design artefact that translates editorial practice and values into alignment objectives for technical implementation. Last, we discuss how editorial alignment can create space for ongoing participation and give editors agency in LLM-mediated knowledge dissemination.