<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Reliability on Decision Models</title><link>https://tsotsos.tech/tags/reliability/</link><description>Recent content in Reliability on Decision Models</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><copyright>2026 Decision Models · Georgios Tsotsos</copyright><lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://tsotsos.tech/tags/reliability/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Make Accountability a System Property</title><link>https://tsotsos.tech/notes/accountability-as-a-system-property/</link><pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://tsotsos.tech/notes/accountability-as-a-system-property/</guid><description>Accountability for AI-generated code has to be built into the development process, not bolted on after an incident. Three operational shifts, a tooling reality check, and a governance control plane concept.</description></item><item><title>AI Didn't Break Accountability. It Exposed the Gap.</title><link>https://tsotsos.tech/essays/ai-didnt-break-accountability/</link><pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://tsotsos.tech/essays/ai-didnt-break-accountability/</guid><description>AI coding tools broke the accountability chain engineering organizations relied on for decades. 42% of commits are now AI-generated, but most organizations haven&amp;#39;t decided who owns the outcome when that code fails in production.</description></item></channel></rss>