Causal Humility: Governing the Authority of Fairness Claims Under Causal Uncertainty

Abstract

AI systems increasingly shape consequential decisions in employment, lending, healthcare, and public services, making fairness an important problem for auditing and governance. Fairness assessment often requires more than identifying disparities in outcomes; it also requires understanding how those disparities arise. Causal approaches to algorithmic fairness address this explanatory problem by representing pathways through which protected attributes and other factors may influence outcomes. Yet causal reasoning in sociotechnical systems remains uncertain: relevant confounders may be unobserved, causal directions contested, and conclusions sensitive to modeling assumptions and representational choices. We introduce causal humility as a governance framework for managing the relationship between epistemic uncertainty and causal authority. Drawing on causal fairness research, epistemology, political philosophy, and science and technology studies, causal humility has four requirements: making consequential assumptions and omissions visible; preserving contestability across defensible causal accounts; recognizing indeterminacy as a legitimate analytical outcome; and maintaining proportionality between evidentiary support and institutional authority or action. We operationalize these requirements through Causal Cards, a documentation artifact for recording the causal basis, assumptions, omissions, model dependence, and governance implications of fairness claims. Using the UCI Adult dataset as a worked epistemic demonstration, we show how different causal discovery procedures applied to the same observational data render fairness-relevant pathways visible, absent, or unresolved. Causal humility treats such disagreement as information about the limits of what can responsibly be claimed and the authority those claims should carry.