An aggregate score is an incomplete account of a consequential decision.
I believe an audit should show who changes when a model or decision rule changes. Similar averages can coexist with different selections; I want that difference examined before an institution calls two systems equivalent. I would narrow this requirement where decisions are demonstrably insensitive to identity and the cost of tracing it outweighs its value.
RIDI: the research question behind the position
Read the full argument →Capacity belongs inside the evaluation.
I regard the number of interviews, inspections or support places as part of the decision system. Changing capacity changes the boundary that a model acts on. I want institutions to compare plausible capacities and explain who bears the consequences of the chosen limit, rather than treating that limit as an invisible implementation detail.
Read my argument about capacity and accountability
Read the full argument →An institution must be able to explain what its categories mean.
I believe workforce intelligence starts with an explicit account of the work: its purpose, responsibilities, decision rights and requirements. A title or code cannot carry that meaning by itself. I want AI to make assumptions reviewable while the institution remains responsible for the definitions, revisions and decisions it adopts.
MIYAR: an implementation to examine
Read the full argument →Readiness requires evidence of judgment under changed conditions.
I believe a learner should explain a choice, test it, and revise it when a relevant constraint changes. Attendance, content coverage and a polished AI-assisted artifact do not establish that capability on their own. I want evidence appropriate to the discipline, including the learner’s reasoning and the limits of what we can infer from one task.
iSCARB and the educational design behind this position
Read the full argument →Identity & sovereignty in education
IMAM: who owns the purpose of learning?
I connect the identity question in IMAM to who defines the purpose of learning, selects the knowledge and judges the evidence of readiness. I believe a university should be able to explain and revise those choices in its own language and disciplinary context, even when it uses external AI tools. I would judge that control by visible authority over curriculum, assessment and revision; an Arabic interface alone would not establish it.
Read the education argument →
IMAM: implementation & development →I use RIDI to investigate what an evaluation leaves unspecified about a downstream decision. I use the public demonstration as a replay of one SciFact case: the displayed retrieval metrics remain unchanged while the recorded answer changes. I treat that case as a reason to examine the relationship between an audit and an action; it is not a universal estimate of harm or proof that every deployment behaves the same way.
Implementation & project stages →