Abstract

Despite substantial investment and organizational commitment, artificial intelligence initiatives continue to fail at high rates. Industry surveys consistently report failure rates between 70 and 85 percent, representing billions of dollars in lost investment and unrealized strategic value annually. These failures stem not primarily from technical limitations but from governance deficiencies: inadequate stakeholder alignment, misunderstood requirements, inappropriate risk tolerance, and insufficient iteration protocols. Building on prior work establishing risk classification taxonomies for synthetic media [1] and identifying dual-use convergence patterns in generative AI applications [2], this paper introduces the 0/0 Framework, a governance model designed to address root causes of AI project failure while enabling responsible deployment of generative AI capabilities. The framework name reflects its dual objective: achieving zero preventable harms through rigorous governance while maintaining zero tolerance for governance shortcuts that create conditions for such harms. The framework operationalizes four interconnected pillars: Value Alignment requires AI systems to embody organizational values; Risk Proportionality calibrates governance intensity to actual risk levels; Stakeholder Consideration engages affected parties meaningfully throughout system lifecycles; and Iterative Validation enables continuous adaptation based on observed outcomes. Through integration with established regulatory frameworks including the EU AI Act and NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and through a worked deployment scenario that traces the framework across a complete governance decision, the 0/0 Framework provides organizations with practical governance structures intended to reduce failure rates while supporting ethical deployment of powerful AI capabilities.

References

• F. Martinson, "The Authenticity Spectrum Framework: Classifying Deepfake and Generative AI Risks in Synthetic Media," International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 187, no. 88, pp. 34-38, 2026. DOI: 10.5120/ijca2026926538
• F. Martinson, "The Marketing-Fraud Convergence: When Legitimate AI Tools Enable Financial Crime," International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 187, no. 98, pp. 1-5, 2026. DOI: 10.5120/ijcaa6160f6a9822
• Gartner, "Predicts 2025: AI and the Future of Work," Gartner Research, 2024.
• S. Ransbotham et al., "Achieving Individual and Organizational Value with AI," MIT Sloan Management Review, 2023.
• Boston Consulting Group, "Most Digital Transformations Fail," BCG Henderson Institute, 2024.
• European Union, "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)," Official Journal of the European Union, 2024.
• National Institute of Standards and Technology, "AI Risk Management Framework," NIST AI 100-1, 2023.
• L. Floridi et al., "AI4People-An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society," Minds and Machines, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 689-707, 2018.
• A. Jobin et al., "The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines," Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 389-399, 2019.
• B. Mittelstadt, "Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI," Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 11, pp. 501-507, 2019.
• T. Hagendorff, "The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines," Minds and Machines, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 99-120, 2020.
• I. D. Raji et al., "Closing the AI Accountability Gap," FAT* '20 Proceedings, 2020.
• N. A. Smuha, "From a Race to AI to a Race to AI Regulation," Law, Innovation and Technology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 57-84, 2021.
• M. Whittaker et al., "AI Now Report 2018," AI Now Institute, 2018.
• E. Brynjolfsson and A. McAfee, "The Business of Artificial Intelligence," Harvard Business Review, 2017.