mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Redrawing the AI Map: A Theory of Accountability Boundaries in Agentic Ecosystems

arXiv 2605.23179 ↗First posted 22 May 2026cs.AIcited by 1

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic AI orchestrators reduce the interface and assembly costs of composing information systems capabilities across organizational boundaries, seemingly accelerating modularization and organizational disaggregation. Yet AI-enabled capabilities whose outputs require evidence, review, signoff, or assignable responsibility may retain integrated accountability boundaries even when their technical interfaces become modular. We develop a capability-level theory of accountability-boundary placement in agentic ecosystems. We introduce accountability assets: complementary assets that make AI-supported outputs legitimate, auditable, reviewable, and assignable to a responsible party. We argue that verification cost and responsibility transferability determine whether the execution and accountability boundaries can move together. The theory identifies three boundary strategies: component, integrated, and dual-track. It also introduces rule debt, the governance burden that accrues when organizational decision rules migrate from formal information systems into ungoverned agentic execution environments. Integrating digital innovation, transaction cost, complementary-assets, digital platform governance, and IS control perspectives, we develop seven propositions linking agentic assembly-cost reductions, accountability assets, appropriability, orchestrator intent capture, and boundary misconfiguration to boundary strategy, value appropriation, and rule debt. The theory explains when digital modularization extends to organizational disaggregation and when accountability keeps capabilities integrated. Structured illustrations across document processing, legal services, audit, clinical decision support, and procurement discipline the boundary logic.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 0 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 May 2026.

Builds on

0 of 43 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026The Headless Firm: How AI Reshapes Enterprise Boundaries
  2. 2026Governance by Design: Architecting Agentic AI for Organizational Learning and Scalable Autonomy
  3. 2026No One to Blame: A Framework of Constitutive AI Unaccountability
  4. 2025With Great Capabilities Come Great Responsibilities: Introducing the Agentic Risk & Capability Framework for Governing Agentic AI Systems
  5. 2026Governing the Agentic Enterprise: A Governance Maturity Model for Managing AI Agent Sprawl in Business Operations
  6. 2026Agentic Analysis for Agentic Infrastructure: An LLM-Powered Pipeline for Comparative Governance of DAO and Corporate AI Protocols
  7. 2026Beyond Task Success: An Evidence-Synthesis Framework for Evaluating, Governing, and Orchestrating Agentic AI
  8. 2026The CASE Framework: A Multi-Disciplinary Control Architecture for Governing Enterprise Agentic AI