Normative translation audit (NTA): an audit design for AI ethics principle transplantation that enables intra

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics has expanded rapidly through the global circulation of principle vocabularies such as transparency, fairness, and accountability. Yet lexical alignment can conceal how responsibility and legitimacy are reallocated when principles are translated into institutions and operations. This paper identifies a recurrent comparison-design failure in intra-Asian comparison: when Euro-American frameworks silently become the reference point, intra-regional comparison degenerates into deviation scoring and cannot jointly handle high internal plurality and cross-border interdependence. I conceptualize this failure as reference-point drift. To diagnose and reduce drift risk, I propose a minimal procedure called normative translation audit (NTA). NTA redesigns the unit of comparison from principle vocabularies to four branch points that determine practical governance: (1) operational definitions, (2) veto rights, (3) remedy lines, and (4) accountability assignment. NTA is not a pass/fail compliance audit or third-party assurance; it is a minimal procedure for fixing comparison units and tracing whether register updates actually changed decisions in specifications, operations, or remedy design. NTA requires three artifacts: a Branch Register, a Decision-Change Log, and a multi-anchor memo that documents anchor selection and exclusion so that external frameworks do not become the only baseline. A brief demonstration (Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Singapore) illustrates how branch-point comparison reveals divergences—especially around contestation and decision review—that vocabulary-based comparison tends to hide, while outlining a testable protocol for future empirical evaluation. Similar content being viewed by others Data availability No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. References Acharya A (2004) How ideas spread: whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. Int Organ 58(2):239–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024 Ananny M, Crawford K (2018) Seeing without knowing: limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media Soc 20(3):973–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645 ASEAN (2024) ASEAN guide on AI governance and ethics. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ASEAN-Guide-on-AI-Governance-and-Ethics_beautified_201223_v2.pdf. Accessed 27 Dec 2025 ASEAN (2025) Expanded ASEAN guide on AI governance and ethics—generative AI. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Expanded-ASEAN-Guide-on-AI-Governance-and-Ethics-Generative-AI.pdf. Accessed 27 Dec 2025 Boltanski L, Thévenot L (2006) On justification: economies of worth. Princeton University Press, Princeton Bovens M (2007) Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework. Eur Law J 13(4):447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x Burrell J (2016) How the machine “thinks”: understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data Soc 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512 Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (2019) Social principles of human-centric AI. https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/humancentricai.pdf. Accessed 27 Dec 2025 Collier D (2011) Understanding process tracing. PS Polit Sci Polit 44(4):823–830. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429 Dolowitz DP, Marsh D (2000) Learning from abroad: the role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance 13(1):5–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00121 European Commission (2020) Assessment List for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (ALTAI). https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/assessment-list-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence-altai-self-assessment. Accessed 27 Dec 2025 European Commission High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (2019) Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai. Accessed 27 Dec 2025 George AL, Bennett A (2005) Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge Hagendorff T (2020) The ethics of AI ethics: an evaluation of guidelines. Minds Mach 30:99–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8 Hine E, Floridi L (2024) Artificial intelligence with American values and Chinese characteristics: a comparative analysis of American and Chinese governmental AI policies. AI Soc 39:257–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01499-8 Hongladarom S, Bandasak J (2024) Non-western AI ethics guidelines: implications for intercultural ethics of technology. AI Soc 39:2019–2032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01665-6 IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems (2019) Ethically aligned design: a vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems (first edition). https://standards.ieee.org/industry-connections/ec/autonomous-systems/ieee-global-initiative/wp-content/uploads/sites/542/2023/01/ead1e.pdf. Accessed 27 Dec 2025 IMDA, PDPC (2020) Model artificial intelligence governance framework (second edition). https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/imda/files/infocomm-media-landscape/sg-digital/tech-pillars/artificial-intelligence/second-edition-of-the-model-ai-governance-framework.pdf. Accessed 27 Dec 2025 ISO/IEC (2023) ISO/IEC 23894:2023 Artificial intelligence—guidance on risk management. https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html. Accessed 27 Dec 2025 Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E (2019) The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell 1:389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 Lijphart A (1971) Comparative politics and the comparative method. Am Polit Sci Rev 65(3):682–693. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955513 Merry SE (2006) Human rights and gender violence: translating international law into local justice. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Mittelstadt B (2019) Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nat Mach Intell 1(11):501–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4 Morley J, Floridi L, Kinsey L, Elhalal A (2020) From what to how: an overview of AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. Sci Eng Ethics 26(4):2141–2168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00165-5 National Governance Committee for the New Generation Artificial Intelligence (2019) Governance principles for the new generation artificial intelligence: developing responsible AI (17 June 2019). Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), PRC. https://www.most.gov.cn/kjbgz/201906/t20190617_147107.html. Accessed 27 Dec 2025 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2023) AI risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0). https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework. Accessed 27 Dec 2025 NITI Aayog (2021) Responsible AI for all: principles for responsible AI. https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2021-02/Responsible-AI-22022021.pdf. Accessed 27 Dec 2025 OECD (2019) Recommendation of the council on artificial intelligence (OECD/LEGAL/0449). https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/oecd-legal-0449. Accessed 27 Dec 2025 Power M (1997) The audit society: rituals of verification. Oxford University Press, Oxford Raji ID, Smart A, White RN et al (2020) Closing the AI accountability gap: defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In: Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (FAT* ’20). ACM, pp 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873 Said EW (1979) Orientalism. Vintage, New York Sandvig C, Hamilton K, Karahalios K, Langbort C (2014) An algorithm audit. In: Gangadharan SP (ed) Data and discrimination: collected essays. Open Technology Institute, New America. https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/data-and-discrimination.pdf. Accessed 27 Dec 2025 Selbst AD, Boyd D, Friedler SA, Venkatasubramanian S, Vertesi J (2019) Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In: Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (FAT* ’19). ACM, pp 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598 Spivak GC (1988) Can the subaltern speak? In: Nelson C, Grossberg L (eds) Marxism and the interpretation of culture. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp 271–313 Stone D (2012) Transfer and translation of policy. Policy Stud 33(6):483–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2012.695933 Strathern M (ed) (2000) Audit cultures: anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. Routledge, London Thévenot L (2009) Governing life by standards: a view from engagements. Soc Stud Sci 39(5):793–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312709338767 UNESCO (2021) Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence (adopted 23 November 2021). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380455. Accessed 27 Dec 2025 Zhu J (2024) AI ethics with Chinese characteristics? Concerns and preferred solutions in Chinese academia. AI Soc 39:1261–1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01578-w Acknowledgements Acknowledgements/ppChatGPT (OpenAI) was used for translation into English and language editing of content conceived by the author, as well as for assistance with literature searches. Conceptual design, argument structure, and final source selection were based on the author’s own judgment. All final wording was reviewed, revised, and approved by the author, who takes full responsibility for the manuscript. Author information Authors and Affiliations Contributions MO conceived the study, developed the conceptual framework, conducted the analysis, and wrote the manuscript. Corresponding author Ethics declarations Conflict of interest The author declare no competing interests. Additional information Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Appendix 1. Minimal coding sheet (CSV columns) for E1 studies (recommended) Appendix 1. Minimal coding sheet (CSV columns) for E1 studies (recommended) - anchor_id - anchor_title - anchor_version - anchor_date - scope - branchpoint (definition/veto/remedy/accountability) - code (E/I/D/A) - evidence_locator (section + heading; page if stable; URL fragment) - note (interpretation/boundary case) - confidence (High/Medium/Low) - coder_id - coded_at - disagreement_flag (0/1 if double-coded) Rights and permissions Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. About this article Cite this article Ochiai, M. Normative translation audit (NTA): an audit design for AI ethics principle transplantation that enables intra-Asian comparison. AI & Soc (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-03362-6 Received: Accepted: Published: Version of record: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-03362-6