The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2606.31567 · v1 · pith:X3FH5FAD · submitted 2026-06-30 · cs.CY · cs.AI

FLARE-AI: Flaw Reporting for AI

Shayne Longpre , Elaine Zhu , Carson Ezell , Avijit Ghosh , Sean McGregor , Kevin Paeth , Kevin Klyman , Sayash Kapoor
show 10 more authors
Rishi Bommasani Ruth Appel Gregory Strom Lauren McIlvenny Mark M. Jaycox Peter Slattery Nathan Butters Arvind Narayanan Percy Liang Alex Pentland
This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith2026-07-01 03:01 UTCgrok-4.3pith:X3FH5FADopen to challenge →

classification cs.CY cs.AI
keywords AI flaw reportinginteroperabilityAI safetyincident reportingAI governancereporting systemstriage informationflaw disclosure
0
0 comments X

The pith

FLARE-AI offers an open-source reporting system that collects AI flaw details once and optionally routes standardized reports to multiple developers and coordinators.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper audits twelve existing AI flaw reporting systems to identify five recurring design problems around discoverability, scope, data collection, coordination, and liability guidance. It incorporates input from forty-nine experts at thirty-two organizations to shape FLARE-AI, which uses conditional questions to gather triage-ready information and supports machine-readable output that can be sent to several recipients from one submission. A sympathetic reader would care because current fragmentation forces reporters to fill out many forms while recipients receive inconsistent data, slowing the identification and repair of deployed AI failures. The design aims to lower these barriers and increase information flow without requiring any single party to change its own intake process.

Core claim

FLARE-AI is an open-source AI flaw reporting system designed for interoperability with existing systems. It streamlines flaw report creation by collecting triage-relevant information through conditional logic and early classification, then enables optional dissemination of standardized, machine-readable reports to multiple developers, coordinators, and incident registries from a single submission.

What carries the argument

The FLARE-AI interface that applies conditional logic to gather relevant details and produces machine-readable reports for optional multi-stakeholder distribution.

If this is right

  • Reporters avoid filling multiple different forms for the same flaw.
  • Recipients receive consistent, triage-ready information instead of varied submissions.
  • Developers, security researchers, and coordinators gain visibility into reports that previously stayed siloed.
  • Remediation of identified AI flaws can begin earlier across organizations.
  • The ecosystem gains a shared format that existing systems can adopt without replacing their own intake processes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Widespread use could create a larger public dataset of AI incidents that researchers could analyze for patterns.
  • The standardized output format might serve as a starting point for regulatory reporting requirements in the future.
  • Integration testing with major developer portals would reveal whether the optional dissemination feature actually reaches the intended recipients.
  • Similar conditional-logic designs could be applied to reporting systems outside AI, such as for cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

Load-bearing premise

The five design challenges identified from the audit of twelve systems and feedback from forty-nine experts accurately capture the main barriers to effective flaw reporting.

What would settle it

Track the rate of duplicate submissions and cross-stakeholder sharing for the same AI flaws before and after FLARE-AI adoption; no measurable drop in duplication or rise in shared reports would indicate the system has not achieved its interoperability goal.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.31567 by Alex Pentland, Arvind Narayanan, Avijit Ghosh, Carson Ezell, Elaine Zhu, Gregory Strom, Kevin Klyman, Kevin Paeth, Lauren McIlvenny, Mark M. Jaycox, Nathan Butters, Percy Liang, Peter Slattery, Rishi Bommasani, Ruth Appel, Sayash Kapoor, Sean McGregor, Shayne Longpre.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FLARE-AI Reporting Workflow Overview. The system guides reporters through eight steps from initial classification to report generation and routing. Fields marked with asterisks (*) are required. Blue text indicates conditionally displayed fields based on the Step 1 classification questions. The routing partners in the image represent real stakeholder commitments at the time of writing. To design a practica… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A high-level comparison of AI flaw/incident reporting design [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A detailed comparison of AI flaw/incident reporting design [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FLARE-AI home page. The AI Flaw Reporting framework implements several key design choices that directly impact both user experience and recipient triaging capabilities. Rather than requiring users to navigate compelx technical taxonomies, the system employs a two-stage classification approach that narrows the reporting scope progressively based on key characteristics of the incident. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Step 2 of the reporting form, which allows users to input their contact and affected system information. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Step 8 of the reporting form, which allows users to download the report in JSON format and automatically offers options to route to different organizations based on previous selections. C.4.4. API INTEGRATION Recipient organizations integrate via standardized APIs: webhook endpoints for real-time notifications, RESTful endpoints for report retrieval with filtering, status update mechanisms that propagate t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Flaw reporting for deployed AI systems is fundamental to identifying system failures and improving AI safety. Yet the AI reporting ecosystem is fragmented: researchers who identify flaws often do not know what or where to report, and groups who receive reports rarely share them with other relevant stakeholders. As a result, good-faith reporters duplicate effort by submitting many different forms, and recipients lack standardized, triage-ready information. We audit 12 reporting systems published by AI developers, cybersecurity groups, and AI flaw aggregators, identifying five recurring design challenges spanning discoverability, scope, information collection, coordination, and guidance for strict-liability cases. Building on this analysis and feedback from 49 experts across 32 organizations representing developers, security researchers, and ecosystem coordinators, we introduce FLARE-AI, an open-source AI flaw reporting system designed for interoperability with existing systems. FLARE-AI streamlines flaw report creation by collecting triage-relevant information through conditional logic and early classification, then enables optional dissemination of standardized, machine-readable reports to multiple developers, coordinators, and incident registries from a single submission. By lowering barriers to reporting AI flaws and improving interoperability across stakeholders, FLARE-AI helps break down silos and accelerate remediation across the AI ecosystem.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript audits 12 reporting systems to identify five design challenges in AI flaw reporting: discoverability, scope, information collection, coordination, and guidance for strict-liability cases. Based on this and feedback from 49 experts across 32 organizations, it introduces FLARE-AI, an open-source interoperable system that collects triage-relevant information via conditional logic and enables single-submission dissemination to multiple stakeholders, aiming to reduce duplication and break down silos in the AI flaw reporting ecosystem.

Significance. This proposal has the potential to improve AI safety practices by standardizing and streamlining flaw reporting. The grounding in an audit and expert consultations, along with the open-source and interoperable design, are notable strengths that could facilitate adoption if the system is validated in practice.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The statement that FLARE-AI 'helps break down silos and accelerate remediation across the AI ecosystem' is presented without any evaluation, comparison to existing systems, or data on usage; the effectiveness is inferred from the design rather than demonstrated.
  2. Audit of reporting systems and expert consultations: The five challenges are positioned as recurring and primary based on the audit of 12 systems and 49 experts, but without details on how the systems were selected or how representative the sample is of the broader ecosystem, it is unclear if unaddressed barriers exist that could limit the claimed benefits.
minor comments (1)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from a table or explicit mapping showing how each of the five challenges is addressed by specific features of FLARE-AI.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and precision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The statement that FLARE-AI 'helps break down silos and accelerate remediation across the AI ecosystem' is presented without any evaluation, comparison to existing systems, or data on usage; the effectiveness is inferred from the design rather than demonstrated.

    Authors: We agree that the claim of effectiveness is inferential, based on the design rationale, audit findings, and expert input rather than direct evaluation or usage metrics. The manuscript presents a system proposal, not an empirical study of impact. We will revise the abstract to qualify the language (e.g., replacing the declarative statement with 'is designed to help break down silos...') and will add a brief limitations paragraph noting the absence of post-deployment evaluation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Audit of reporting systems and expert consultations: The five challenges are positioned as recurring and primary based on the audit of 12 systems and 49 experts, but without details on how the systems were selected or how representative the sample is of the broader ecosystem, it is unclear if unaddressed barriers exist that could limit the claimed benefits.

    Authors: The current manuscript text does not include explicit selection criteria or sampling details for the 12 systems or the 49 experts. We acknowledge this reduces transparency regarding representativeness. In revision we will insert a new subsection describing the audit methodology, including how the 12 systems were identified (prominent developer, aggregator, and cybersecurity channels) and the process for recruiting expert participants, along with a note on scope limitations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; descriptive proposal grounded in external audit and expert input

full rationale

The manuscript contains no mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or first-principles predictions. Its central claims rest on an audit of 12 external reporting systems and feedback from 49 experts across 32 organizations; the five design challenges are presented as outputs of that audit rather than inputs redefined by the proposal itself. FLARE-AI is introduced as an engineering response to those challenges, with no self-citation load-bearing steps, no renaming of known results, and no reduction of any result to its own inputs by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The proposal rests on the audit-derived challenges and expert feedback as the primary inputs for system design, with no independent empirical validation of effectiveness provided in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The five recurring design challenges identified in the audit of 12 systems represent the main barriers to effective AI flaw reporting.
    These challenges directly motivate the features of FLARE-AI.
  • domain assumption Feedback from 49 experts across 32 organizations is representative and sufficient to guide an effective design.
    Expert input is used to validate and shape the system.
invented entities (1)
  • FLARE-AI no independent evidence
    purpose: Open-source interoperable AI flaw reporting system
    Newly proposed tool whose utility is asserted but not demonstrated with usage data in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5808 in / 1476 out tokens · 80509 ms · 2026-07-01T03:01:12.484813+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    open your wallet

    IEEE, 2023. AIAAIC. AIAAIC Repository. URL https://www.ai aaic.org/aiaaic-repository. Akgul, O., Eghtesad, T., Elazari, A., Gnawali, O., Grossklags, J., Mazurek, M. L., V otipka, D., and Laszka, A. Bug Hunters’ perspectives on the challenges and ben- efits of the bug bounty ecosystem. In32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), pp. 2275– 2291, ...

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Anderson, C., Blili-Hamelin, Borhane, Majumdar, S., and Nathan Butters

    URL https://www.lunasec.io/docs/ blog/openai-not-so-open/. Anderson, C., Blili-Hamelin, Borhane, Majumdar, S., and Nathan Butters. (Comment on FR Doc # 2023-07776) Response from the AI Risk and Vulnerability Alliance to the NTIA AI Accountability Policy Request for Comment. NTIA public comments NTIA-2023-0005-1144, AI Risk and Vulnerability Alliance, June...

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v40i45.41161 2023

  3. [3]

    Eslami, M., Vaccaro, K., Lee, M

    URL https://www.vice.com/en/arti cle/we-need-bug-bounties-for-bad-alg orithms/. Eslami, M., Vaccaro, K., Lee, M. K., Elazari Bar On, A., Gilbert, E., and Karahalios, K. User attitudes towards algorithmic opacity and transparency in online reviewing platforms. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’19, pp. 1–14...

    work page doi:10.1145/3290 2019

  4. [4]

    Artwork Size: 737445 Bytes

    URL https://kilthub.cmu.edu/arti cles/report/Lessons_Learned_in_Coord inated_Disclosure_for_Artificial_Int elligence_and_Machine_Learning_Syste ms/26867038/1. Artwork Size: 737445 Bytes. Householder, A. D. Designing vultron: A protocol for multi- party coordinated vulnerability disclosure (mpcvd). Tech- nical Report CMU/SEI-2022-SR-012, Carnegie Mellon Un...

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Leveson, N.CAST HANDBOOK: How to Learn More from Incidents and Accidents

    URL https://crfm.stanford.edu/20 24/04/08/aups.html. Leveson, N.CAST HANDBOOK: How to Learn More from Incidents and Accidents. 2019. URL http://sunnyd ay.mit.edu/CAST-Handbook.pdf. Liaghati, C. MITRE ATLAS: Real World AI Security Attacks and Community Capabilities, September 2025. URL https://csrc.nist.gov/Presentati ons/2025/mitre-atlas. Liang, P., Bomma...

    work page arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology

    Adversarial threat modeling and incident data sharing. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Framework for improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity. Tech- nical report, NIST, 2018. URL https://nvlpubs. nist.gov/nistpubs/cswp/nist.cswp.041 62018.pdf. New York City Council. Local Law 144 of 2021, December

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Nichols, S

    URL https://legistar.council.nyc .gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=43445 24&GUID=B051915D-A9AC-451E-81F8-65960 32FA3F9&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=. Nichols, S. Why cloud bugs don’t get cves, and why it’s an issue, 2021. URL https://www.techtarget.c om/searchsecurity/news/252508948/Why -cloud-bugs-dont-get-CVEs-and-why-its -an-issue. Nie, Y ., Williams, A., ...

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    abuse risks are often inherent to product features

    Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl- main.441. URL https: //aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.441. NIST. CVE-2019-20634, March 2020. URL https: //nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-2 0634. NIST. CVE-2023-29374, April 2023. URL https:// nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-293 74. Oakley, J. G. Rules of engagement, 2019. OECD. Sto...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl- 2020

  9. [9]

    Avail- able on SSRN

    URL https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3 /papers.cfm?abstract_id=4784610 . Avail- able on SSRN. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Cybersecurity in medical devices: Quality system considerations and con- tent of premarket submissions, 2023. URL https: //www.fda.gov/media/119933/download. 14 FLARE-AI: Flaw Reporting for AI Walshe, T. and Simpson, A. C. Coordinated...

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    good-faith research

    doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2022.102936. URL https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid%3A 58b63628-8a00-4958-8d1f-8c880bfc8d91/ files/rdj52w5329. Weidinger, L., Mellor, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Uesato, J., Huang, P.-S., Cheng, M., Glaese, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. Ethical and social risks of harm from language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359, 2021. W...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cose.2022.102936 2022

  11. [11]

    Other global initiatives, such as the OECD AI Incidents Monitor (OECD, 2025) use monitoring to track realized incidents and latent hazards

    documents adversarial tactics against ML systems, though adoption in CVE processes remains limited, with only two ML-related CVEs recorded to date (NIST, 2020; 2023). Other global initiatives, such as the OECD AI Incidents Monitor (OECD, 2025) use monitoring to track realized incidents and latent hazards. Agencies like CISA and CERT have begun to integrat...

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Whether the flaw involves an incident where harm has already occurred

    work page

  13. [13]

    Psychological

    Whether the flaw could be exploited by threat actors with malicious intent. This binary classification approach serves two purposes: it reduces cognitive load on reporters while simultaneously ensuring that reports are categorized appropriately for different recipient workflows. The conditional logic reports to four report types – Real-World Incidents, Se...

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Information Collection:What set of input fields should be collected, with particular attention to what is missing or unnecessary?

    work page

  15. [15]

    Intuitive Information Formatting & Taxonomies:Whether input fields should be open text, multi-class, or multi-label selection, and what taxonomies should be used?

    work page

  16. [16]

    Instructions, Ordering, & Requirements:The provided guidance, ordering of the form information fields, and what fields should be optional vs required? 27 FLARE-AI: Flaw Reporting for AI

    work page

  17. [17]

    Conditional Logic:How can earlier user inputs in the form guide more efficient inferences or collection of downstream information?

    work page

  18. [18]

    Report Dissemination:How report recipients would like to receive reports: automatically via email, API, or other means?

    work page

  19. [19]

    sexualization,

    General Feedback:In your work finding/receiving AI flaws, what other general observations, recommendations or feedback do you have for designing a new reporting system? These questions were designed to elicit feedback to improve the ease of use of the form forreporters, as well as ease of triaging and coordination forreport recipients. We often found that...

    work page