Constitutive vs. Corrective: A Causal Taxonomy of Human Runtime Involvement in AI Systems
This work addresses a conceptual problem for researchers and practitioners in AI, law, and social sciences, but it is incremental as it builds on existing frameworks without introducing new empirical results.
The paper tackles the ambiguity in terminology for human involvement in AI systems, such as Human-in-the-Loop and Human-on-the-Loop, by proposing a causal taxonomy that distinguishes constitutive vs. corrective roles and clarifies their implications for interdisciplinary collaboration and regulation.
As AI systems increasingly permeate high-stakes decision-making, the terminology regarding human involvement - Human-in-the-Loop (HITL), Human-on-the-Loop (HOTL), and Human Oversight - has become vexingly ambiguous. This ambiguity complicates interdisciplinary collaboration between computer science, law, philosophy, psychology, and sociology and can lead to regulatory uncertainty. We propose a clarification grounded in causal structure, focused on human involvement during the runtime of AI systems. The distinction between HITL and HOTL, we argue, is not primarily spatial but causal: HITL is constitutive (a human contribution is necessary for the decision output), while HOTL is corrective (external to the primary causal chain, capable of preventing or modifying outputs). Within HOTL, we distinguish three temporal modes - synchronous, asynchronous, and anticipatory - situated within a nested model of provider and deployer runtime that clarifies their different capacities for intervention. A second, orthogonal dimension captures cognitive integration: whether human and machine operate as complementary or hybrid intelligence, yielding four structurally distinct configurations. Finally, we distinguish these descriptive categories from the normative requirements they serve: statutory "Human Oversight" is a specific normative mode of HOTL that demands not merely a corrective causal position, but genuine preparedness and capacity for effective intervention. Because the same person may occupy both HITL and HOTL roles simultaneously, we argue that this role duality must be treated as a design problem requiring architectural and epistemic mitigation rather than mere acknowledgment.