Deloitte’s AI governance failure exposes critical gap in enterprise quality controls

“At the end of any AI-assisted project, or any significant project where AI has been dominantly the knowledge-making tool, firms or organizations might still need to employ a human proofreader who is a subject-matter expert in the area to sense-check the documents,” he said.

Rydge suggested that the economics could still favor AI adoption even with expert review built in. “Maybe things will be so much cheaper to produce in the knowledge world that the cost of a subject matter expert who proofreads the paper, report, or product will only be understood as a small cost,” Rudge said. “But vetting by professionals should still continue to be the gold standard.”

Gogia said most current agreements still assume human-only authorship even though automation now underpins much of the work. “When something goes wrong, both sides scramble to decide who carries the blame — the consultant, the model, or the client reviewer who signed it off,” he said.

About Author

AndyC

Andy Curtis is an award-winning security consultant, researcher and public speaker. He has been working in the computer security industry since the early 1990s, having been employed by state and federal government, leading healthcare and banking providers across three continents. He has given talks about computer security for some of the world’s largest companies, worked with law enforcement agencies on investigations into hacking groups, and is a regular voice on TV and radio explaining IT security threats.

See author's posts