Purpose
This note explains how LUMINA-30 can be connected to AI incident-monitoring and taxonomy discussions without claiming endorsement, adoption, or formal relation to OECD AIM.
Status
This note is non-binding, descriptive, and unaffiliated with any external institution. It does not claim endorsement, adoption, recognition, approval, certification, compliance, legal effect, or institutional use by any external organization.
Connection Point
Incident monitors and taxonomies can record what happened, what harm or hazard occurred, which system was involved, and which actors were affected. LUMINA-30 adds a boundary-review dimension that can be assessed after the incident facts are recorded.
Suggested Taxonomy Add-On
The following fields can be used as supplementary review fields, not as official OECD categories:
| Supplementary field | Review question |
|---|---|
| Human refusal availability | Was final human refusal available before irreversible impact? |
| Operational effectiveness | Was that refusal practically exercisable in time? |
| Verification record | Are records sufficient to verify the refusal pathway? |
| AI-output finality | Did AI output become the sole or primary rationale for final action? |
| Boundary classification | Should the case be treated as boundary-safe, boundary-warning, no effective refusal, or not verifiable? |
| AI | AI |
Attachment Text
LUMINA-30 can supplement AI incident taxonomies by adding a boundary-review field: whether effective human refusal remained exercisable and verifiable before irreversible AI-related impact. This does not replace incident reporting, harm classification, legal analysis, or official taxonomy work.
LUMINA-30
External Context Links
OECD AI Incidents and Hazards Monitor
Related Internal Materials
Boundary Check Result Classification
Absence Rule Check
Ordinary Incident Review Mapping