Terms related to trustworthiness · 3.5.7
explainability
a property of an AI system that lets it set out the important factors behind its results in terms people can follow
What this term settles
This is the sense the standard gives explainability. A firm is free to use another sense, but then the difference belongs in its own glossary rather than in an assumed shared language.
Who it binds
Nothing here creates an obligation by itself. The obligation arrives when the firm writes explainability into a control, a specification or a purchase order.
What to do in your practice
Write the entry into the glossary the firm actually reads, not a shelf document. Check the two artefacts where the word does most work and note any sentence that stretches the meaning.
Evidence an auditor or regulator asks for
- A controlled vocabulary entry for explainability with the citation 3.5.7, an owner and a review date.An auditor can check that the term is controlled rather than assumed.
- An assurance argument that links the property to the test, the review or the incident record behind it.Shows explainability in use in the artefact the firm relies on, not only in a glossary.
- A register row with the owner, the date and the evidence reference for the claim.The assurance case asserts the property without naming the test, review or incident record that supports it.
Common gaps this page catches
- explainability is used in the assurance argument without a written definition, so two teams can mean different things.
- A local synonym has grown up beside the entry and the two are now used interchangeably.
What to prepare before the amendment lands
Brief the owners who use explainability most often, then ask each to return one artefact that shows the entry in use. File the artefacts against the register row.
How to test it here
Take one live artefact rather than a template, find the sentence or field where explainability is used, and put this page beside it. Record the answer, the artefact and the date, because that record is the evidence and a glossary entry on its own is only an intention.
What this page does not claim
The page does not reproduce the standard, certify the firm or predict the wording the amendment will use; it states explainability at the claim level "definition" and stops where the public record stops.
Common questions
- What does explainability mean in ISO 22989?
- a property of an AI system that lets it set out the important factors behind its results in terms people can follow
- What evidence should we keep for 3.5.7?
- A controlled vocabulary entry for explainability with the citation 3.5.7, an owner and a review date. An assurance argument that links the property to the test, the review or the incident record behind it.
- Is explainability a requirement?
- No: explainability is a definition or clause of a terminology standard, and it becomes binding only when a firm writes it into a policy, a contract or a procedure, or when another standard incorporates it.
Related units
Source. ISO/IEC 22989:2022, Clause 3.5.7, Terms and definitions. Open the ISO public entry. Retrieved 21 October 2026.
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso-iec:22989:ed-1:v1:en
ISO catalogue record 88145, the amendment status, stage and dates. Catalogue record 74296, the base standard.
Claim level: definition. The definition is in the public preview. This page states it in our own words and does not reproduce the text.
Last updated: 2026-10-21 · Markdown version · Check your vocabulary