PhilArchive
open access
Governed Release Architecture for Controlled Excellence (GRACE)
Large language models are often judged through fluency, helpfulness, and broad task performance. Yet in practically important settings, the central reliability problem is not generation alone but premature release of structurally weak outputs. A model may produce plausible language while still exhibiting unsupported certainty, logical invalidity, ambiguity-insensitive answering, or unsafe behavior in high-burden contexts. This paper proposes a governance-centered reliability architecture that treats model outputs as provisional candidates rather than automatically releasable answers. The framework separates candidate generation from burden-sensitive evaluation, reflective review, and final release decision. At a high level, the architecture incorporates input burden analysis, ethical-logical evaluation, reflective review, and multi-state release control. Instead of relying on a single answer/refusal pathway, the system supports differentiated outcomes such as approval, qualified approval, revision, clarification request, deferment, and rejection. A preliminary mini-pilot using a small instruction-tuned baseline model provides directional evidence in selected burdened cases, including logical invalidity blocking, ambiguity clarification, brittle factual release control, and at least one high-risk defer case. The results do not establish broad statistical superiority, but they do support the central claim that reliability can improve when release is governed rather than delegated to raw first-pass generation. The work is therefore presented as a proof-of-concept architecture with preliminary pilot evidence and a closed-core implementation strategy. Keywords: Large language models; reliability; governed release; admissibility; reflective review; burden- sensitive control; output governance; uncertainty control; hallucination mitigation; AI safety.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Can We Trust the Judges? Validation of Factuality Evaluation Methods via Answer Perturbation#1109553
- Survey of Enterprise Knowledge, Legal Profiles, and Review Forecasting#696125
- A practical risk framework for large language model use in life science research#976620
- Reviewer Agreement and Phrase-Based Profiles#692141
- Dynamically Allocating Evaluation Effort for Model Ranking#793826
Record · ID 728752
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive