Co-Designing a Responsible AI Checklist. An Operational Framework for Bankruptcy Accountants · Final Review · Score 25/30Co-Designing a Responsible AI Checklist. An Operational Framework for Bankruptcy Accountants · Final Review · Score 25/30Co-Designing a Responsible AI Checklist. An Operational Framework for Bankruptcy Accountants · Final Review · Score 25/30Co-Designing a Responsible AI Checklist. An Operational Framework for Bankruptcy Accountants · Final Review · Score 25/30Co-Designing a Responsible AI Checklist. An Operational Framework for Bankruptcy Accountants · Final Review · Score 25/30Co-Designing a Responsible AI Checklist. An Operational Framework for Bankruptcy Accountants · Final Review · Score 25/30
+
Novel and genuinely operational structure: each of 30 items is assigned to one of four roles (BA/IT/AS/MP) and one of eight lifecycle phases, turning principles into auditable, ownable actions.
+
The V4 calibration with a court-appointed insolvency practitioner injects authentic, non-obvious domain constraints (par conditio creditorum, CCII, confidentiality-first) and the paper reflects well on expert consultation as discovery rather than mere validation.
+
The worked use case traces one realistic sub-procedure (suspicious-operation detection) through all five dimensions with specific item references, and "I trust, but I always verify" is an effective organizing stance.
+
Full interview transcripts and a demographics table are provided, supporting verifiability.
+
Discussion is genuinely reflective (governance–psychology interdependence, confidentiality as precondition) and extends beyond the checklist itself.
−
Very small co-design sample (two engineering students at V2, three non-experts at V3, a single expert at V4); the final professional calibration rests on one person, a serious validity limit (acknowledged but central).
−
Figure 1 states V2 is "byte-for-byte identical to V1," so the genuine instrument transformation effectively happens in two leaps (V1 → V3 prose, V3 → V4 operational), and the item-by-item evolution is not traced.
−
V3 of the checklist is referenced in the methodology but never reproduced in the appendix (only V1, V2, and V4 appear), breaking traceability.
−
The relabeling from L1–L5 (Cognitive Bridge, Internal Filter, Systemic Shield, etc.) to I1–I5 plain names is not mapped, and the jump from prose "layers" to role-assigned items is unexplained.
−
The introduction is informal and contains spelling/grammar errors ("expecially", "redacted", "algoritms"), weakening the professional register.