• workshop_dense_100#slide 4

As an ordering device, the four-circle mind map should be read as a nested model of dependency. The centre is RAIDT itself, defined around the run as the unit of governance. The next circle contains the run-level evidence pack and the five pillars (Responsibility, Auditability, Interpretability, Dependability, Traceability), because those specify what is captured and how governance readiness is judged. The third circle contains influence methods as governance interventions and implementation patterns, because those are the mechanisms and operating arrangements through which scores can improve or deteriorate. The outer circle contains policy translation, standards interoperability, sector calibration, and the empirical programme, because these depend on the inner object already being specified.

That ordering matters academically. The papers argue that governance should not start with abstract principle lists and then retro-fit evidence. Instead, the evidentiary object comes first, then outcome dimensions, then mechanisms, then external translation. In other words, the mind map is not merely a visual summary of topics; it encodes the causal logic of the programme. If a supervisor jumps straight to policy or empirical claims without understanding the inner circles, the project can appear broader or vaguer than it is. When read correctly, the map shows that every outer claim is anchored back to the same bounded, reviewable run record and its score profile. That is why the same map can order the whole deck, support selective reading, and still preserve conceptual coherence.

In a finance setting, a supervisor reviewing GenAI-generated adverse-action explanations can use the mind map to keep the discussion disciplined. The centre is the disputed run itself. The next ring asks whether the run-level evidence pack preserves the prompt template, decision criteria, output, and reviewer notes. The next ring asks whether the explanation was shaped by structured prompting or another intervention, and whether that intervention was logged. Only after those pieces are clear does the outer ring ask how the bank will align the process with audit, assurance, and policy expectations.

Without that ordering, the meeting can drift into abstract compliance talk. With it, every outer claim remains tethered to reconstructable evidence.

• 11-RAIDT_Academic_Logic_M_v11
• 12-RAIDT_DSR_Theory_M_v8