Governed but wrong: the question AI governance cannot answer
Summary
The article argues that AI governance and AI accuracy are separate issues: a system can be well controlled and still produce wrong answers. It stresses that firms should demand evidence of measured accuracy, especially for high-consequence conveyancing matters, rather than relying on outputs that merely sound plausible.
Why it matters
Residential property surveyors increasingly encounter AI-generated information in property workflows, and this piece highlights the need to distinguish between data governance and factual reliability. It reinforces that professional judgement remains essential where AI outputs may affect property decisions, risk assessment or client advice.
Key points
- Governance does not prove an AI answer is correct.
- Fluent, well-written outputs can still be confidently wrong.
- Firms should ask for validated accuracy evidence, not just claims.
- High-level accuracy figures can hide failures on serious issues.
- Human professional judgement remains responsible for final decisions.
This is an RPSA summary of a publicly available article. The full content remains with the original publisher.
