Constitutive vs. Corrective: A Causal Taxonomy of Human Runtime Involvement in AI Systems

TL;DR

This paper clarifies the ambiguous terminology of human involvement in AI systems by proposing a causal taxonomy distinguishing constitutive and corrective roles, with implications for design, regulation, and interdisciplinary understanding.

Contribution

It introduces a causal, structural taxonomy of human involvement in AI, differentiating HITL and HOTL based on causal roles, temporal modes, and cognitive integration, enhancing clarity and regulatory guidance.

Findings

HITL is constitutive, requiring human contribution for decisions.

HOTL is corrective, capable of preventing or modifying outputs.

Normative oversight demands genuine intervention capacity.

Abstract

As AI systems increasingly permeate high-stakes decision-making, the terminology regarding human involvement - Human-in-the-Loop (HITL), Human-on-the-Loop (HOTL), and Human Oversight - has become vexingly ambiguous. This ambiguity complicates interdisciplinary collaboration between computer science, law, philosophy, psychology, and sociology and can lead to regulatory uncertainty. We propose a clarification grounded in causal structure, focused on human involvement during the runtime of AI systems. The distinction between HITL and HOTL, we argue, is not primarily spatial but causal: HITL is constitutive (a human contribution is necessary for the decision output), while HOTL is corrective (external to the primary causal chain, capable of preventing or modifying outputs). Within HOTL, we distinguish three temporal modes - synchronous, asynchronous, and anticipatory - situated within a nested model of provider and deployer runtime that clarifies their different capacities for intervention. A second, orthogonal dimension captures cognitive integration: whether human and machine operate as complementary or hybrid intelligence, yielding four structurally distinct configurations. Finally, we distinguish these descriptive categories from the normative requirements they serve: statutory "Human Oversight" is a specific normative mode of HOTL that demands not merely a corrective causal position, but genuine preparedness and capacity for effective intervention. Because the same person may occupy both HITL and HOTL roles simultaneously, we argue that this role duality must be treated as a design problem requiring architectural and epistemic mitigation rather than mere acknowledgment.