Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This conceptual analysis disentangles code production, psychological ownership, and operational liability in AI-assisted software engineering through a failure case study and literature review. The paper argues that tracing whether human or model generated a defective code fragment fails to delineate reviewer and operator responsibilities, necessitating acceptance criteria grounded in end-to-end service outcomes rather than artifact provenance. This framing provides a rigorous foundation for evaluating reliability as agentic AI shifts from synthesizing intermediate source code to executing tasks directly.
Tracing whether an LLM or a human wrote a buggy line of code is an operational dead end: responsibility cannot be derived from code provenance, requiring quality engineering to pivot entirely to service-outcome verification.
AI-assisted programming raises distinct questions about who produces code, who feels ownership of it, and who is responsible when it fails. This research note examines these distinctions through a hypothetical enrollment failure and a selective reading of the literature. Identifying the producer of a defective expression does not, by itself, determine the duties of reviewers, release decision-makers, or service operators. Collective ownership likewise leaves those duties to be specified. The discussion then considers how quality engineering can evaluate both generated implementations and the processes that produce them. Acceptance criteria should be justified by the required service outcome, with component checks contributing evidence toward that outcome. This perspective also permits comparison with systems that perform a task without generating a separate program for it. Such substitution would change the object of authorship while leaving the service obligation intact. The note reports no new empirical results; it proposes distinctions and evaluation questions for AI-assisted software production.
