Why Organizational Rules Fail AI: O-I-B-A-R and the Externalization of Decision Boundaries

Abstract

AI systems increasingly enter organizations through policies, procedures, playbooks, prompts, and other explicit representations of work. Yet formal descriptions often differ from situated practice, and captured know-what can omit the contextual know-how experts use when judgments are uncertain. We argue that a recurring class of organizational AI failures arises partly from a knowledge representation problem at the sociotechnical interface: the AI receives the procedure, while the organization operates on the procedure plus negative boundaries, runtime judgments, responsibility assignments, and learning history. We introduce O-I-B-A-R (OPEN, IS, BUT, ACTION, RESULT), a scaffold for externalizing these missing decision boundaries. IS records when a judgment holds. BUT records a concrete failure containing information beyond the logical negation of IS. Comparable success and failure cases are decomposed toward a minimally sufficient changing variable, which becomes a value-bearing decision dimension. A suspension represents the state in which the dimension is known but its current value is unresolved, specifying what must be measured, asked, retrieved, or escalated to a human. RESULT confirms a boundary, shifts a threshold, or exposes a new dimension. Incidents can generate new dimensions, unresolved values can define human-AI handoffs, and feedback can expand the decision space. We also identify a sociotechnical tension: durable and attributable failure histories can suppress the candor on which useful boundary knowledge depends. Externalization must therefore be designed as an organizational intervention with real costs and incentives.