In software engineering, launch day rarely fails because a unit test was missing; in machine learning (ML), that’s not the case. Inputs far from training data, adversarial prompts, proxies that drift away from human goals, or an upstream artefact that isn’t what it claims to be can all sink a release. The question is not “can every failure be prevented?” but “can failures be bounded, detected quickly, and recovered from predictably?”

Two research threads shape this approach. The first maps where ML goes wrong in production: robustness gaps, weak runtime monitoring, misalignment with real human objectives, and systemic issues across the stack (supply chain, access, blast radius). The second focuses on how teams make decisions that stand up to scrutiny: a deliberative loop that’s open, informed, multi-vocal, and responsive. Put together, the operating model feels like standard software engineering — just opinionated for ML.