mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

From Governance Norms to Enforceable Controls: A Layered Translation Method for Runtime Guardrails in Agentic AI

arXiv 2604.05229 ↗First posted 6 Apr 2026cs.AI cs.HC cs.LGcited by 7

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic AI systems plan, use tools, maintain state, and produce multi-step trajectories with external effects. Those properties create a governance problem that differs materially from single-turn generative AI: important risks emerge dur- ing execution, not only at model development or deployment time. Governance standards such as ISO/IEC 42001, ISO/IEC 23894, ISO/IEC 42005, ISO/IEC 5338, ISO/IEC 38507, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework are therefore highly relevant to agentic AI, but they do not by themselves yield implementable runtime guardrails. This paper proposes a layered translation method that connects standards-derived governance objectives to four control layers: governance objectives, design- time constraints, runtime mediation, and assurance feedback. It distinguishes governance objectives, technical controls, runtime guardrails, and assurance evidence; introduces a control tuple and runtime-enforceability rubric for layer assignment; and demonstrates the method in a procurement-agent case study. The central claim is modest: standards should guide control placement across architecture, runtime policy, human escalation, and audit, while runtime guardrails are reserved for controls that are observable, determinate, and time-sensitive enough to justify execution-time intervention.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 12 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Apr 2026.

Builds on

12 of 29 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Runtime Governance for AI Agents: Policies on Paths17 Mar
  2. 2026AgentDoG: A Diagnostic Guardrail Framework for AI Agent Safety and Security26 Jan
  3. 2026ToolSafe: Enhancing Tool Invocation Safety of LLM-based agents via Proactive Step-level Guardrail and Feedback15 Jan
  4. 2025Building a Foundational Guardrail for General Agentic Systems via Synthetic Data10 Oct
  5. 2025MI9: An Integrated Runtime Governance Framework for Agentic AI5 Aug
  6. 2025WebGuard: Building a Generalizable Guardrail for Web Agents18 Jul
  7. 2024Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents19 Dec

Other references · 5

  1. 2025Establishing Best Practices for Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarkscited by 94
  2. 2024Safeguarding Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 73
  3. 2025Policy-as-Prompt: Turning AI Governance Rules into Guardrails for AI Agentscited by 12
  4. 2026Proof-of-Guardrail in AI Agents and What (Not) to Trust from Itcited by 4
  5. 2025Policy Cards: Machine-Readable Runtime Governance for Autonomous AI Agentscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.

7 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Institutional AI: A Governance Framework for Distributional AGI Safety
  2. 2026The Controllability Trap: A Governance Framework for Military AI Agents
  3. 2026Beyond Task Success: An Evidence-Synthesis Framework for Evaluating, Governing, and Orchestrating Agentic AI
  4. 2026Runtime Governance for Agentic AI: Action-Boundary Control with Trusted Provenance and Fail-Closed Execution
  5. 2026SARC: A Governance-by-Architecture Framework for Agentic AI Systems
  6. 2026The CASE Framework: A Multi-Disciplinary Control Architecture for Governing Enterprise Agentic AI
  7. 2026Governance by Construction for Generalist Agents
  8. 2026A Five-Plane Reference Architecture for Runtime Governance of Production AI Agents