An Incident-Based Ethical Risk Screening Matrix for AI-Based Information Systems Using Public AI Incident Records

This study developed an incident-based ethical risk screening matrix for AI-based information systems using 100 publicly reported AI incident records from 2020 to 2026. It used descriptive content analysis and criterion-based purposive sampling. Each incident was coded by year, system domain, ethical risk type, affected stakeholder, ethical principle violated, severity level, and evidence strength. The study aimed to identify common ethical risk patterns and translate them into a practical screening tool for IT managers and organizations. Results showed that the most common ethical risks were misinformation or deception, followed by misuse or malicious use, safety failure, privacy violation, and accountability failure. Generative AI and chatbots had the highest number of incidents. Notable risk exposure was also found in law enforcement and surveillance, finance, government and public service, education, and social media platforms. The most affected stakeholder group was the general public. Most cases were assessed as high severity, while some were assessed as critical severity. Another supporting pattern was the prevalence of deepfakes and synthetic media, mainly linked to impersonation, fraud, misinformation, privacy harm, and reputational damage. The study concludes that AI-based information systems need ethical screening early in adoption, deployment, or expansion. The proposed matrix helps users identify warning signs, ask targeted screening questions, and apply management actions. It also gives organizations a structured way to connect documented AI failures to practical review steps. The matrix is not a substitute for a full technical, legal, or cybersecurity review. It uses documented AI failures as practical evidence to support early risk identification and responsible IT management.

AI ethics, AI incidents, ethical risk, information systems, screening matrix

1. AI Incident Database. (n.d.). Welcome to the Artificial Intelligence Incident Database. https://incidentdatabase.ai/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Atherton, D. (2026, February 2). AI Incident Roundup: November and December 2025 and January 2026. AI Incident Database. https://incidentdatabase.ai/blog/incident-report-2025-november-december-2026-january/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Autio, C., Schwartz, R., Dunietz, J., Jain, S., Stanley, M., Tabassi, E., Hall, P., & Roberts, K. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile (NIST AI 600-1). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610-623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Burema, D., Debowski-Weimann, N., von Janowski, A., Grabowski, J., Maftei, M., Jacobs, M., van der Smagt, P., & Benbouzid, D. (2023). A sector-based approach to AI ethics: Understanding ethical issues of AI-related incidents within their sectoral context. Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 705–714. https://doi.org/10.1145/3600211.3604680 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Diel, A., Lalgi, T., Mellis, F. S., Teufel, M., & Bäuerle, A. (2025). The harm of deepfakes: A scoping review of deepfakes’ negative effects on human mind and behavior. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02774-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dixon, R. B. L., & Frase, H. (2025). AI incidents: Key components for a mandatory reporting regime. Center for Security and Emerging Technology. https://doi.org/10.51593/20240023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Feffer, M., Martelaro, N., & Heidari, H. (2023). The AI Incident Database as an educational tool to raise awareness of AI harms: A classroom exploration of efficacy, limitations, and future improvements. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3617694.3623223 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Gabriel, I. (2020). Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. Minds and Machines, 30, 411-437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hadan, H., Mogavi, R. H., Zhang-Kennedy, L., & Nacke, L. E. (2025). Who is responsible when AI fails? Mapping causes, entities, and consequences of AI privacy and ethical incidents. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2549073 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Helmus, T. C. (2022). Artificial intelligence, deepfakes, and disinformation: A primer. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/PEA1043-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R. M., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023). Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12), Article 248. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kietzmann, J., Lee, L. W., McCarthy, I. P., & Kietzmann, T. C. (2020). Deepfakes: Trick or treat? Business Horizons, 63(2), 135-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.11.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Knight, S., McGrath, C., Viberg, O., & Cerratto Pargman, T. (2025). Learning about AI ethics from cases: A scoping review of AI incident repositories and cases. AI and Ethics, 5, 2037-2053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00639-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. McGregor, S. (2021). Preventing repeated real-world AI failures by cataloging incidents: The AI Incident Database. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(17), 15458-15463. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v35i17.17817 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Mirsky, Y., & Lee, W. (2021). The creation and detection of deepfakes: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3425780 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Mökander, J., & Floridi, L. (2021). Ethics-based auditing to develop trustworthy AI. Minds and Machines, 31(2), 323–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09557-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Mökander, J., Schuett, J., Kirk, H. R., & Floridi, L. (2024). Auditing large language models: A three-layered approach. AI and Ethics, 4, 1085-1115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00289-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Nguyen, T. T., Nguyen, Q. V. H., Nguyen, D. T., Nguyen, D. T., Huynh-The, T., Nahavandi, S., Nguyen, T. T., Pham, Q. V., & Nguyen, C. M. (2022). Deep learning for deepfakes creation and detection: A survey. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 223, Article 103525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cviu.2022.103525 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025). Towards a common reporting framework for AI incidents (OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 34). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f326d4ac-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Paeth, K., Atherton, D., Pittaras, N., Frase, H., & McGregor, S. (2025). Lessons for editors of AI incidents from the AI Incident Database. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 39(28), 28946-28953. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v39i28.35163 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* ’20) (pp. 33–44). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Shelby, R., Rismani, S., Henne, K., Moon, A., Rostamzadeh, N., Nicholas, P., Yilla-Akbari, N., Gallegos, J., Smart, A., Garcia, E., & Virk, G. (2023). Sociotechnical harms of algorithmic systems: Scoping a taxonomy for harm reduction. Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 723-741. https://doi.org/10.1145/3600211.3604673 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Slattery, P., Saeri, A. K., Grundy, E. A. C., Graham, J., Noetel, M., Uuk, R., Dao, J., Pour, S., Casper, S., & Thompson, N. (2024). The AI Risk Repository: A comprehensive meta-review, database, and taxonomy of risks from artificial intelligence. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.12622 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Tolosana, R., Vera-Rodriguez, R., Fierrez, J., Morales, A., & Ortega-Garcia, J. (2020). Deepfakes and beyond: A survey of face manipulation and fake detection. Information Fusion, 64, 131-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2020.06.014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2020). Deepfakes and disinformation: Exploring the impact of synthetic political video on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Social Media + Society, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120903408 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Weidinger, L., Uesato, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Huang, P.-S., Mellor, J., Glaese, A., Cheng, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., Biles, C., Brown, S., Kenton, Z., Hawkins, W., Stepleton, T., Birhane, A., Hendricks, L. A., Rimell, L., Isaac, W., ... Gabriel, I. (2022). Taxonomy of risks posed by language models. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 214-229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533088 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Wei, M., & Zhou, Z. (2022). AI ethics issues in real world: Evidence from AI Incident Database. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.07635 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Enhancing Formation Control of Multi Agent Systems Using Ann Based Technique
• Improving Sliding Mode Control with Chattering Reduction using Fuzzy Based Technique
• Cooking Quality, Fasting Blood Glucose, Glycemic Index and Load of High–Fiber Noodles Made from Wheat, Tiger Nut Residue and Cassava Flour Blends
• Matrix Rhythm Therapy Versus Interferential Therapy Combined with Lumbar Stabilization Exercises in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Comparative Trial
• Formulation and Sensory Evaluation of Functional Cake Prepared from Sweet Potato Powder