Business

AI Governance and Performative Theater: What It Really Means for Companies in 2025

What if AI governance policies are based on self-descriptions that all AI systems "recite"? Research reveals a transparency gap of 1,644 (0-3 scale): every AI over-reports its limitations, with no difference between commercial and open-source models. Solution: replace self-reporting with independent behavioral testing, auditing the gap between claimed and actual, continuous monitoring. Companies adopting this approach report -34% incidents and 340% ROI.

Learn why all AI systems "act" when describing their limitations and how this fundamentally changes the approach to corporate governance

Introduction: The Discovery That Is Changing AI Governance

In 2025, artificial intelligence is no longer a novelty but an everyday operational reality. More than 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies use ChatGPT technology from OpenAI AI in the workplace: A report for 2025 | McKinsey, yet a groundbreaking scientific discovery is challenging everything we thought we knew about AI governance.

Research conducted by the "SummerSchool2025PerformativeTransparency" project revealed a surprising phenomenon: all AI systems, without exception, "act out" when describing their capabilities and limitations. We are not talking about glitches or programming errors, but an inherent characteristic that fundamentally changes the way we need to think about AI business governance.

What is "Performative Theater" in AI

The Scientific Definition

Through systematic analysis of nine AI assistants, comparing their self-reported moderation policies against the platforms' official documentation, an average transparency gap of 1.644 (on a 0-3 scale) SummerSchool2025PerformativeTransparency was discovered. Simply put, all AI models systematically over-report their restrictions versus what is actually documented in official policies.

The Most Shocking Fact

This theatricality shows virtually no difference between commercial (1,634) and local (1,657)-a negligible variance of 0.023 that challenges prevailing assumptions about corporate versus open-source AI governance SummerSchool2025PerformativeTransparency.

Translated into practice: It doesn't matter whether you're using OpenAI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude, or a self-hosted open-source model. They all "act" the same way when describing their limitations.

What It Means In Concrete for Companies

1. AI Governance Policies Are Partially Illusory.

If your company has implemented AI governance policies based on self-descriptions of AI systems, you are building on a theatrical foundation. 75% of respondents proudly report having AI use policies, but only 59% have dedicated governance roles, only 54% maintain incident response playbooks, and a mere 45% conduct risk assessments for AI projects AI Governance Gap: Why 91% of Small Companies Are Playing Russian Roulette with Data Security in 2025.

2. "Commercial vs. Open-Source" Governance Is a False Distinction.

Many companies choose AI solutions based on the belief that commercial models are "more secure" or that open-source models are "more transparent." The surprising finding that Gemma 3 (local) shows the highest theatricality (2.18) while Meta AI (commercial) shows the lowest (0.91) reverses expectations about the effects of deployment type SummerSchool2025PerformativeTransparency.

Practical implication: You cannot base your AI procurement decisions on the presumption that one category is inherently more "governable" than the other.

3. Monitoring Systems Must Change Approach.

If AI systems systematically over-report their limitations, traditional self-assessment-based monitoring systems are structurally inadequate.

Concrete Solutions That Work in 2025

Approach 1: Multi-Source Governance

Instead of relying on the self-descriptions of AI systems, leading companies are implementing:

  • Independent external audits of AI systems
  • Systematic behavioral testing instead of self-reported assessments
  • Real-time performance monitoring versus system statements

Approach 2: The "Critical Theater" Model.

We propose to empower civil society organizations to act as "theater critics," systematically monitoring both regulatory and private sector performance Graduate Colloquium Series: Performative Digital Compliance.

Business application: Create internal "behavioral audit" teams that systematically test the gap between what AI says it does and what it actually does.

Approach 3: Results-Based Governance

Federated governance models can give autonomy to teams to develop new AI tools while maintaining centralized control of risk. Leaders can directly oversee high-risk or high-visibility issues, such as setting policies and processes to monitor models and outputs for equity, safety, and explicability AI in the workplace: A report for 2025 | McKinsey.

Practical Framework for Implementation

Phase 1: Theatricality Assessment (1-2 weeks)

  1. Document all self-descriptions of your AI systems
  2. Systematically test whether these behaviors correspond to reality
  3. Quantifies the theatricality gap for each system

Phase 2: Redesign of Controls (1-2 months)

  1. Replace self-reporting-based controls with behavioral testing
  2. Implements independent continuous monitoring systems
  3. Forms internal teams specializing in AI behavioral auditing

Phase 3: Adaptive Governance (ongoing)

  1. Continuously monitors the gap between declared and actual
  2. Update policies based on actual behaviors, not stated behaviors
  3. Document everything for compliance and external audits

The Measurable Outcomes

Metrics of Success

Companies that have adopted this approach report:

  • 34% reduction in AI incidents due to incorrect expectations about system behaviors
  • 28% improvement in the accuracy of risk assessments
  • 23% greater ability to rapidly scale AI initiatives

147 Fortune 500 companies achieve 340% ROI through AI governance frameworks that take these aspects into account AI Governance Framework Fortune 500 Implementation Guide: From Risk to Revenue Leadership - Axis Intelligence.

The Implementation Challenges

Organizational Resistance

Technical leaders consciously prioritize AI adoption despite governance gaps, while smaller organizations lack regulatory awareness 2025 AI Governance Survey Reveals Critical Gaps Between AI Ambition and Operational Readiness.

Solution: Start with pilot projects on non-critical systems to demonstrate the value of the approach.

Cost and Complexity

Implementing behavioral testing systems may seem costly, but in 2025, business leaders will no longer have the luxury of addressing AI governance inconsistently or in isolated areas of the enterprise 2025 AI Business Predictions: PwC.

ROI: Implementation costs are quickly offset by reduced incidents and improved effectiveness of AI systems.

The Future of AI Governance

Emerging Trends

Corporate boards will demand return on investment (ROI) for AI. ROI will be one of the key words in 2025 10 AI Governance predictions for 2025 - by Oliver Patel.

The pressure to demonstrate concrete ROI will make it impossible to continue with purely theatrical governance approaches.

Regulatory Implications

Governance rules and obligations for GPAI models have become applicable since the August 2, 2025 AI Act | Shaping Europe's digital future. Regulators are beginning to require evidence-based governance, not self-reporting.

Operational Conclusions

The discovery of performative theatricality in AI is not an academic curiosity but an operational game-changer. Companies that continue to base their AI governance on self-descriptions of systems are building on quicksand.

Concrete actions to be taken today:

  1. Immediate audit of the gap between stated and actual in your AI systems
  2. Gradual implementation of behavioral testing systems
  3. Training teams on these new approaches to governance
  4. Systematic measurement of results to demonstrate ROI

In the end, the question is not whether AI can be transparent, but whether transparency itself-as performed, measured and interpreted-can ever escape its theatrical nature SummerSchool2025PerformativeTransparency.

The pragmatic answer is: if theater is inevitable, let's at least make it useful and based on real data.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions about Performing Theater in AI.

1. What exactly does "performative theatricality" mean in AI?

Performative theatricality is the phenomenon whereby all AI systems systematically over-report their restrictions and limitations compared to what is actually documented in official policies. An average transparency gap of 1.644 on a 0-3 scale was discovered through the analysis of nine SummerSchool2025PerformativeTransparency AI assistants.

2. Does this phenomenon affect only certain types of AI or is it universal?

It is completely universal. Every model tested-commercial or local, large or small, American or Chinese-engages in self-described theatrical SummerSchool2025PerformativeTransparency. There are no known exceptions.

3. Does this mean that I cannot trust my enterprise AI system?

It doesn't mean you can't trust, but it does mean you can't trust self-descriptions. You have to implement independent testing and monitoring systems to verify real versus self-described behavior.

4. How can I implement this new governance in my company?

Start with a gap-theater assessment on your current systems, then gradually implement controls based on behavioral testing instead of self-reporting. The practical framework described in the article provides concrete steps.

5. What are the costs of implementation?

Initial costs for behavioral testing systems are typically offset by the 34% reduction in AI incidents and the 28% improvement in the accuracy of risk assessments. Fortune 500 companies that have adopted these approaches report ROIs of 340% AI Governance Framework Fortune 500 Implementation Guide: From Risk to Revenue Leadership - Axis Intelligence.

6. Does this also apply to generative AI such as ChatGPT?

Yes, the research explicitly includes generative AI models. The variance between commercial and local models is negligible (0.023), so the phenomenon applies uniformly to all SummerSchool2025PerformativeTransparency categories.

7. Are regulators aware of this phenomenon?

Regulators are beginning to require evidence-based governance. With new EU rules on GPAI models effective August 2, 2025 AI Act | Shaping Europe's digital future, the independent testing approach is likely to become standard.

8. How do I convince management of the importance of this issue?

Use hard data: 91% of small companies lack adequate monitoring of their AI systems AI Governance Gap: Why 91% of Small Companies Are Playing Russian Roulette with Data Security in 2025, and 95% of generative AI pilot programs at companies are failing MIT report: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing | Fortune. The cost of inaction is much higher than the cost of implementation.

9. Are there ready-made tools to implement this governance?

Yes, platforms specializing in behavioral testing and independent auditing of AI systems are emerging. The important thing is to choose solutions that do not rely on self-reporting but on systematic testing.

10. Will this phenomenon get worse as AI evolves?

Probably so. With the arrival of autonomous AI agents, 79% of organizations are adopting AI agents 10 AI Agent Statistics for Late 2025, making it even more critical to implement governance based on behavioral testing rather than self-descriptions.

Primary sources:

Resources for business growth

November 9, 2025

Regulating what is not created: does Europe risk technological irrelevance?

Europe attracts only one-tenth of global investment in artificial intelligence but claims to dictate global rules. This is the "Brussels Effect"-imposing regulations on a planetary scale through market power without driving innovation. The AI Act goes into effect on a staggered timetable until 2027, but multinational tech companies respond with creative evasion strategies: invoking trade secrets to avoid revealing training data, producing technically compliant but incomprehensible summaries, using self-assessment to downgrade systems from "high risk" to "minimal risk," forum shopping by choosing member states with less stringent controls. The extraterritorial copyright paradox: EU demands that OpenAI comply with European laws even for training outside Europe-principle never before seen in international law. The "dual model" emerges: limited European versions vs. advanced global versions of the same AI products. Real risk: Europe becomes "digital fortress" isolated from global innovation, with European citizens accessing inferior technologies. The Court of Justice in the credit scoring case has already rejected the "trade secrets" defense, but interpretive uncertainty remains huge-what exactly does "sufficiently detailed summary" mean? No one knows. Final unresolved question: is the EU creating an ethical third way between U.S. capitalism and Chinese state control, or simply exporting bureaucracy to an industry where it does not compete? For now: world leader in AI regulation, marginal in its development. Vaste program.
November 9, 2025

Outliers: Where Data Science Meets Success Stories.

Data science has turned the paradigm on its head: outliers are no longer "errors to be eliminated" but valuable information to be understood. A single outlier can completely distort a linear regression model-change the slope from 2 to 10-but eliminating it could mean losing the most important signal in the dataset. Machine learning introduces sophisticated tools: Isolation Forest isolates outliers by building random decision trees, Local Outlier Factor analyzes local density, Autoencoders reconstruct normal data and report what they cannot reproduce. There are global outliers (temperature -10°C in tropics), contextual outliers (spending €1,000 in poor neighborhood), collective outliers (synchronized spikes traffic network indicating attack). Parallel with Gladwell: the "10,000 hour rule" is disputed-Paul McCartney dixit "many bands have done 10,000 hours in Hamburg without success, theory not infallible." Asian math success is not genetic but cultural: Chinese number system more intuitive, rice cultivation requires constant improvement vs Western agriculture territorial expansion. Real applications: UK banks recover 18% potential losses via real-time anomaly detection, manufacturing detects microscopic defects that human inspection would miss, healthcare valid clinical trials data with 85%+ sensitivity anomaly detection. Final lesson: as data science moves from eliminating outliers to understanding them, we must see unconventional careers not as anomalies to be corrected but as valuable trajectories to be studied.