Validation-Centric AI-Native Decision
Systems: Integrating the GAVA Loop with:
PRIME–INSPECT Governance
and SIWEC Methods

AI-native decision systems — in which generative artificial intelligence generates,Avramović, Nebojša executes, and adapts decisions in real time — are shifting the centre of gravity of analytical effort. Whereas the principal challenge used to be the extraction of insight, it is now becoming the validation of AI outputs while action is still being taken upon them. Existing approaches address this problem only partially: explainable artificial intelligence and governance frameworks treat validation as an ex post layer; reinforcement learning reduces it to a single scalar reward; control theory and the broader cybernetic tradition formalise the closed loop but neglect its sociotechnical constraints; while the PRIME–INSPECT framework establishes a governance foundation, yet leaves real-time validation implicit. This paper proposes a validation-centric architecture that links the GAVA decision loop (Generate–Act–Validate– Adapt), introduced here, with the PRIME–INSPECT framework and elevates validation to a central analytical function comprising four subdimensions: statistical, operational, cognitive, and governancerelated. The proposed architecture is empirically examined on a dual sample of IT professionals and top-management representatives, using descriptive statistics, multiple regression, mediation, moderation, and structural equation modelling. The results confirm the central role of trust, the negative effect of perceived risk, and the importance of topmanagement support, while robustness checks separated by the IT and TMT subsamples further strengthen the structural model. Taken as a whole, the findings support the view that validation should be treated as a first-order organisational stage in AInative decision systems.

artificial intelligence governance, AI-native systems, behavioural intention, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), GAVA loop, generative artificial intelligence, real-time decisionmaking, structural equation modelling, trust calibration, validation-centric architecture

1. Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., et al., "On the opportunities and risks of foundation models," Stanford Center for Research on Foundation Models (CRFM), arXiv:2108.07258, 2021, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.07258.

2. Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., and Cao, Y., "ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models," in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023, arXiv:2210.03629.

3. Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., and Dwivedi, Y. K., "Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of big data — Evolution, challenges and research agenda," International Journal of Information Management, vol. 48, pp. 63–71, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.021.

4. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., et al., "Artificial intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy," International Journal of Information Management, vol. 57, art. no. 101994, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002.

5. Russell, S. and Norvig, P., Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 4th ed., global ed. Harlow, U.K.: Pearson, 2021.

6. Avramović, N., Marković, A., Čomić, T., Čavoški, S., Zornić, N., and Vujović, V., "PRIME–INSPECT: A SocioTechnical Framework for Trustworthy Intelligent Automation and Real-Time Decision-Making in Industry 4.0," Applied Sciences, vol. 16, no. 10, art. no. 4825, 2026, doi: 10.3390/app16104825.

7. Milutinović, V., "The best method for presentation of research results," IEEE TCCA Newsletter, no. 9, pp. 1–6, 1996.

8. Bengio, Y., Hinton, G., Yao, A., et al., "Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress," Science, vol. 384, no. 6698, pp. 842–845, 2024, doi: 10.1126/science.adn0117.

9. Kirilenko, A., Kyle, A. S., Samadi, M., and Tuzun, T., "The flash crash: High-frequency trading in an electronic market," Journal of Finance, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 967–998, 2017, doi: 10.1111/jofi.12498.

10. Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., and Mullainathan, S., "Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations," Science, vol. 366, no. 6464, pp. 447–453, 2019, doi: 10.1126/science.aax2342.

...