Building Guardrails, Not Roadblocks
Responsible AI in Finance
You wouldn’t accept a number in your board report if no one could explain where it came from.
But that’s the scenario finance teams risk creating for themselves as generative AI becomes embedded in forecasting, analysis, and reporting.
These tools are powerful. Used with intention and oversight, they can accelerate workflows, surface insights faster, and support sharper decision-making. But without visibility into how they produce outputs, they become black boxes that are fluent, confident ... and occasionally wrong.
The question isn’t whether to use AI in finance. It’s how to govern it so your teams can trust, validate, and explain what these systems are doing.
The Black Box Problem
Generative AI tools don’t follow clear, deterministic logic. Instead, they operate on probability; using patterns learned from their huge training datasets to generate plausible outputs. The trouble is, even the people who build these models often can’t pinpoint exactly how a specific result was produced.
That’s what we mean by a "black box."
Inputs go in and outputs come out, but the transformation in between is largely opaque. You can’t easily trace which factors drove the result or why certain data points were emphasized. For finance teams responsible for accuracy, compliance, and auditability, that lack of transparency presents a serious risk.
When you can’t inspect or explain how a number was generated, you can’t trust it. And you certainly can’t defend it to your board, auditors, or regulators.
Explainability Is the New Materiality
Enter explainable AI (XAI). When models influence financial forecasts, scenario planning, or risk assessments, it’s not enough to show the output. You need to understand how the model arrived at its conclusion.
Explainability transforms an AI tool from a productivity enhancer into a reliable decision-support system. It’s essential because financial decisions require defensible, auditable reasoning. Without it, you risk losing the confidence of your CEO, board, audit committee, and regulators.
Finance leaders don’t need to be machine learning experts, but they do need to build a habit of interrogation:
What inputs went into this model?
What variables or data features had the most influence?
Is this output consistent with our historical trends or assumptions?
Can we explain this to auditors or regulators in plain language?
Explainability should be part of every review loop for AI-enabled outputs. If a model influences decisions or financial statements, it needs to be inspectable. Treat it like any other financial control.
If you can’t explain it, you can’t defend it. And if you can’t defend it, you probably shouldn’t deploy it.
📘 Just Updated: My LinkedIn Learning Course on GenAI in Finance
My course Leveraging Generative AI in Finance and Accounting — taken by over 50,000 professionals — now includes updated case studies and examples reflecting the latest in large language models.
Watch it free on LinkedIn Learning →
Explainability in Cloud-Based AI Tools
Many finance teams are already using cloud-based generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Gemini, and Claude for tasks ranging from report drafting to scenario modeling. These platforms offer impressive capabilities, but they also introduce new governance challenges.
Because these systems operate as hosted services, visibility into how their underlying models generate responses is limited. You typically don’t have access to model weights, training data, or the full reasoning path behind a given output. That makes explainability even more critical.
What you can govern is how your team uses these tools:
Log prompts and outputs for review and traceability.
Use system prompts or context windows to constrain scope and ensure relevance.
Apply human-in-the-loop validation for any AI-generated output used in formal reports, forecasts, or decisions.
Favor enterprise-grade tools that offer memory controls, content filtering, and audit logs (e.g., ChatGPT Enterprise, Microsoft Copilot).
Treat these platforms like any other third-party service: while you may not control the engine, you can establish clear standards for usage, review, and accountability.
Guardrails You Can Deploy Today
Governance doesn’t have to mean bureaucracy. These agile controls can enable safe, responsible scaling:
Use case gates: Require approvals for high-impact use cases; particularly anything touching external financial statements or regulatory disclosures.
Prompt and output logging: Track inputs and outputs, especially when using general-purpose hosted tools where internal visibility is limited.
Model risk tiering: Categorize tools by risk. A text summarizer doesn’t need the same scrutiny as a forecasting model.
Human-in-the-loop review: Require human review before AI outputs influence material decisions.
Tool-specific safeguards: Activate audit logs, memory settings, and other governance features in tools like Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT Enterprise.
With the right guardrails, finance teams can embrace AI without compromising their core responsibilities.
Done right, governance becomes a catalyst -- not a constraint. It gives finance the confidence to scale AI safely.
🔒 Pro Toolkit Downloads
These assets are exclusive to paid subscribers.
The Responsible AI Toolkit for Finance
Built for CFOs, controllers, and FP&A teams rolling out GenAI with confidence.
Included in this issue:
✅ AI Use Case Risk Register
Score and prioritize your AI initiatives based on business impact, explainability needs, and control requirements.✅ Explainability Checklist for Finance Teams
A quick-reference guide for validating any AI-generated output used in reporting, forecasting, or decisions.✅ AI Governance Rollout Roadmap
A phased strategy for scaling oversight—from early pilots to auditable enterprise use.
→ Upgrade to access all downloads