# From "Thinking" to "Justifying": Aligning High-Stakes Explainability with Professional Communication Standards

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.07233 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.07233/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 22 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Jan 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07258/) (2021)
- [Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11511/) (2023)
- [PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06146/) (2019)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03685/) (2020)
- [Good Debt or Bad Debt: Detecting Semantic Orientations in Economic Texts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1307.5336/) (2013)
- [Teach Me to Explain: A Review of Datasets for Explainable Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.12060/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [GANDR: Claim Auditing for Verifiable Legal Answer Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.10293/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Explainable AI (XAI) in high-stakes domains should help stakeholders trust and verify system outputs. Yet Chain-of-Thought methods reason before concluding, and logical gaps or hallucinations can yield conclusions that do not reliably align with their rationale. Thus, we propose "Result -> Justify", which constrains the output communication to present a conclusion before its structured justification. We introduce SEF (Structured Explainability Framework), operationalizing professional conventions (e.g., CREAC, BLUF) via six metrics for structure and grounding. Experiments across four tasks in three domains validate this approach: all six metrics correlate with correctness (r=0.20-0.42; p<0.001), and SEF achieves 83.9% accuracy (+5.3 over CoT). These results suggest structured justification can improve verifiability and may also improve reliability.