Designing for Artificial Intelligence in High-Risk Domains: A Case Study

The integration of artificial intelligence into high-risk domains presents unique design challenges that balance automation efficiency with necessary human oversight. This article presents a case study of an AI-assisted regulation change management platform designed for financial institutions, where compliance failures can result in significant penalties. The two-stage verification process implemented in this system demonstrates how human-centered design principles can effectively mitigate known psychological pitfalls in human-AI interaction, including automation bias and complacency. Through careful interface design and workflow structuring, the platform successfully addresses the accuracy gap in the LLMs predictions that could otherwise lead to substantial financial and reputational risks.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Published
2025-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813251370724
Primary Topic
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Designing for Artificial Intelligence in High-Risk Domains: A Case Study

Tanay Arora
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
article

Designing for Artificial Intelligence in High-Risk Domains: A Case Study

Tanay Arora
article en

Abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence into high-risk domains presents unique design challenges that balance automation efficiency with necessary human oversight. This article presents a case study of an AI-assisted regulation change management platform designed for financial institutions, where compliance failures can result in significant penalties. The two-stage verification process implemented in this system demonstrates how human-centered design principles can effectively mitigate known psychological pitfalls in human-AI interaction, including automation bias and complacency. Through careful interface design and workflow structuring, the platform successfully addresses the accuracy gap in the LLMs predictions that could otherwise lead to substantial financial and reputational risks.

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingVol. 69(1)
San Jose State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.