An Editorial Framework for Narrative-Mediated Judgment Across Model-Driven Systems

While the preceding editorial establishes a minimum responsibility floor for model-driven decision claims, this editorial advances a complementary objective: specifying how narrative functions as an operational mediator of judgment once responsibility conditions have been satisfied. Rather than defining eligibility criteria for responsibility, the framework articulated here delineates the structural roles narrative performs after responsibility is preserved. Narrative is treated neither as an explanatory device nor as a persuasive instrument. Instead, it is defined as a bounded operational mechanism through which inferences are endorsed, constrained, transferred, or refused across epistemic and organizational domains. The framework identifies invariant narrative functions shared across artificial intelligence, engineering, medicine, physics, and policy systems, independent of domain-specific content or technical implementation. The editorial further distinguishes legitimate forms of narrative mediation from narrative failure modes, including cases in which narrative supplants judgment, stabilizes premature action, or diffuses accountability across system boundaries. By formalizing narrative as an operational structure rather than a communicative layer, this framework provides a deployable approach to governing judgment mediation without intervening in underlying technical models. This editorial does not introduce new responsibility criteria, prescribe domain-specific practices, or redefine technical standards. Its purpose is to specify how narrative operates after responsibility conditions are met, ensuring that judgment remains actionable, contestable, and governable in model-saturated decision environments.