Accountability Capture: How Record-Keeping to Support AI Transparency and Accountability (Re)shapes Algorithmic Oversight
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Accountability regimes typically encourage record-keeping to enable the transparency that supports oversight, investigation, contestation, and redress. However, implementing such record-keeping can introduce considerations, risks, and consequences, which so far remain under-explored. This paper examines how record-keeping practices bring algorithmic systems within accountability regimes, providing a basis to observe and understand their effects. For this, we introduce, describe, and elaborate 'accountability capture' -- the re-configuration of socio-technical processes and the associated downstream effects relating to record-keeping for algorithmic accountability. Surveying 100 practitioners, we evidence and characterise record-keeping issues in practice, identifying their alignment with accountability capture. We further document widespread record-keeping practices, tensions between internal and external accountability requirements, and evidence of employee resistance to practices imposed through accountability capture. We discuss these and other effects for surveillance, privacy, and data protection, highlighting considerations for algorithmic accountability communities. In all, we show that implementing record-keeping to support transparency in algorithmic accountability regimes can itself bring wider implications -- an issue requiring greater attention from practitioners, researchers, and policymakers alike.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2025.
Builds on
12 of 44 references.
References · 12
- 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,543
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,371
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,068
- 2022Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governancecited by 67
- 2023Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystemcited by 49
- 2024AI auditing: The Broken Bus on the Road to AI Accountabilitycited by 42
- 2022Dislocated Accountabilities in the AI Supply Chain: Modularity and Developers' Notions of Responsibilitycited by 33
- 2021Reviewable Automated Decision-Making: A Framework for Accountable Algorithmic Systemscited by 30
- 2024On the Quest for Effectiveness in Human Oversight: Interdisciplinary Perspectivescited by 28
- 2021Outlining Traceability: A Principle for Operationalizing Accountability in Computing Systemscited by 26
- 2021An Artificial Intelligence Life Cycle: From Conception to Productioncited by 11
- 2015CamFlow: Managed Data-sharing for Cloud Servicescited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026Accountable Agents in Software Engineering: An Analysis of Terms of Service and a Research Roadmapcited by 3
- 2026To Build or Not to Build? Factors that Lead to Non-Development or Abandonment of AI Systemscited by 0
- 2026Security and Privacy in Agentic AI: Grand Challenges and Future Directionscited by 0
- 2026A Global Comparison of Schemas, Transparency, and Interoperability in Public-Sector AI Registers and Inventoriescited by 0
- 2026When Agents Act Unwatched: The Reduced-Supervision Paradox in Agentic AIcited by 0
- 2026A Global Comparison of Schemas, Transparency, and Interoperability in Public-Sector AI Registers and Inventories21 Sep 2026
- 2026When Agents Act Unwatched: The Reduced-Supervision Paradox in Agentic AI28 Aug 2026
- 2026Security and Privacy in Agentic AI: Grand Challenges and Future Directions7 Jul 2026
- 2026Accountable Agents in Software Engineering: An Analysis of Terms of Service and a Research Roadmap6 May 2026
- 2026To Build or Not to Build? Factors that Lead to Non-Development or Abandonment of AI Systems30 Apr 2026