Abstract
Floridi locates answerability in a named human with genuine epistemic control, even when production and checking are distributed. I argue that this leaves the constitution of operational answerability underdeveloped. A hypothetical automated classroom assessment shows why an individualized education program, documented prior human review, and current, legitimate institutional permissions are constitutive conditions of correction. The grader accurately reads a written response, but the authorized assessment requires additional evidence of the student’s understanding. The teacher remains normatively responsible, while the connected arrangement supplies authority, evidence, and means for the specified intervention. Its extent depends on the correction and the time: amending a score may require a different arrangement from repairing the platform. This account preserves human responsibility without granting independent standing to the model or treating fluent reasons as sufficient. Operational answerability identifies a situated corrective capacity, distinct from both the obligation to answer and the successful exercise of that capacity.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Not applicable. No datasets were generated or analyzed for this article.
References
Definition of individualized education program. (2024). 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2025-title34-vol2/CFR-2025-title34-vol2-sec300-324 https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.320/a
Floridi, L. (2026). AI and the future of publishing: Not detection, but answerability. Philosophy & Technology,39, Article 129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-026-01148-8
Review and revision of IEPs. (2024). 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(b). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2025-title34-vol2/CFR-2025-title34-vol2-sec300-324 https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.324/b
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2006). Accessibility of a child’s IEP to teachers and others, 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(d). Federal Register, 71(156), 46789. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2025-title34-vol2/CFR-2025-title34-vol2-sec300-323 https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.323/d
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
No funds, grants, or other support were received during preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Russell W. Waltz developed the argument and is the sole author of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Not applicable. The article presents philosophical analysis and a stipulated hypothetical, not research involving participants.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Use of artificial intelligence
OpenAI Codex assisted with argument mapping, case refinement, compression, source checking, and internal review. The author directed and reviewed this work and retains sole responsibility for the argument and text.
Competing interests
The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Waltz, R.W. Corrective Capacity and Institutional Support: A Reply to Floridi. Philos. Technol. 39, 184 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-026-01193-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-026-01193-3