Co-constructing sociotechnical AI governance: participatory system mapping using algorithm registers

Source

• Source name: arXiv
• Source kind: paper
• Authors / organization: Íñigo de Troya, Maurus Enbergs, Neelke Doorn, Roel Dobbe
• Venue: arXiv: cs.CY
• Published: 2026-08-12
• Collected: 2026-08-13
• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12166v1
• PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.12166v1
• DOI: UNKNOWN
• Registry group: academic_apis_and_preprints
• Evidence role: canonical_academic_index
• Language: en
• Country / region: UNKNOWN

Plain-Language Brief

In this paper, researchers examine a municipal algorithm register used for decision-support tools in welfare benefits eligibility assessments. They find that engaging diverse stakeholders in participatory system mapping workshops can help identify potential safety hazards and offer insights into the normative dimensions of algorithm governance.

What the Document Says

• Algorithm registers are used for transparency on algorithms in public services.
• There is a difference in expectations and abilities to parse information among potential publics.
• It's unclear how algorithm registers represent the sociotechnical systems they are embedded in.
• The study focuses on a decision-support tool for welfare benefits eligibility based on legal automation in a Dutch city.
• Interviews, surveys, and participatory system mapping workshops were conducted with municipal staff, civil society organizations, and ombudsmen (N=8).
• These maps informed a System-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) to understand the register's place in a wider sociotechnical governance structure.
• Participants identified potential safety hazards not visible using the algorithm register alone, such as benefits eligibility denial, system performance deterioration, and wrongful decisions contestation issues.

Key Concepts Mentioned

• algorithm registers
• transparency
• public services
• participatory system mapping
• System-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA)
• sociotechnical systems
• safety hazards

Claims Made by the Document

• Algorithm registers can reveal and occlude aspects about the sociotechnical systems governing algorithmic systems.
• Participatory system mapping workshops can facilitate a more pluralistic system-theoretic safety analysis.

Evidence Used

• Interviews, surveys, and participatory system mapping workshops

Methods / Approach

• Participatory system mapping
• System-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA)

Limitations Stated by the Authors

• The study only involved one Dutch city.

Limitations Noted by the Agent

Agent interpretation — not from the source.

• The data provided is from a single source and may not reflect all perspectives or experiences.
• The sample size for the interviews, surveys, and workshops was small (N=8).

Open Questions

• How do algorithm registers vary among different cities and countries?

Notes for Future Q&A

May include interpretation. Labeled where it does.

• It would be interesting to explore how these findings may apply to other cities or countries.

Raw Abstract / Excerpt

Algorithm registers have been championed as a means of providing transparency on the use of algorithms in public services. Yet potential publics differ in their expectations of what should be made transparent and how, as well as in their interest in and ability to parse the information currently published in the registers. Moreover, it remains unclear how these instruments can represent the sociotechnical systems in which these algorithms are embedded, and how system-level transparency can facilitate accountability. In this paper, we ask, what do algorithm registers reveal (and occlude) about the sociotechnical systems governing algorithmic systems, and how can diverse stakeholder perspectives inform a more pluralistic system-theoretic safety analysis? To do this, we probe the municipal algorithm register of a Dutch city through a case study of a decision-support tool for caseworkers' assessment of citizens' welfare benefits eligibility based on legal automation through a business rule engine. Through interviews, surveys, and participatory system mapping workshops (with municipal staff, civil society organisations, and ombudsmen, N=8), we seek to understand to what extent the register allows stakeholders to map the algorithmic system in question. These maps inform a System-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) that situates the register within a wider sociotechnical governance structure. Participants' contributions allow us to identify potential safety hazards which would not have been possible to see using the algorithm register alone, including benefits eligibility denial, system performance deterioration, and inability to contest wrongful decisions. By engaging both direct and indirect stakeholders, we reflect on the normative dimensions of algorithm governance efforts and how politics shape the practice of system safety analysis.