PANEL OUTCOME FIT FOR WHOM? · WSIS FORUM 2026
SESSION SESSION 184 · 7 JULY 2026 · GENEVA

What the
Machine
Does Not Know.

The Missing Data Layer

Invisible Realities as AI Governance Risk.

01. THE PREMISE

AI governance is obsessed with models. But the deeper problem sits upstream: what if the world AI is learning from was never fully measured?

Across health, labor, caregiving, climate exposure, and social life, entire human realities have been historically undercounted, misclassified, or ignored by the institutions now supplying AI with its view of the world.

These missing realities do not disappear when systems are deployed. They become embedded into digital infrastructure, investment decisions, and public services. The result is not merely bias. It is a governance failure.

02. WHAT THE GAP BECOMES

A record can shape the decision long after the person has left the room.

03. THE CASCADE

How an Absence Becomes an Algorithm.

A measurement gap does not stay local. It compounds, through training data, through validation, through deployment, until an omission becomes the default a system enforces.

01 // THE HEALTH PATHWAY

Sex-specific evidence gaps become clinical performance gaps.

THE GAP

Women remain underrepresented in much cardiovascular research, and in many of the diagnostic standards built on top of it. The MELD score, used to prioritise patients for liver transplantation, relies on serum creatinine, a marker that runs naturally lower in women. The formula therefore systematically underestimates the severity of female patients' disease, reducing their likelihood of receiving a transplant under equivalent clinical conditions. The same male-default logic runs through cardiac troponin thresholds, post-MI guidelines, and much of what gets coded into the electronic health records that train modern medical AI.

HOW THE MODEL INHERITS IT

In High-STEACS, sex-specific cardiac troponin thresholds increased detection of myocardial injury by 42% in women and 6% in men. A 2024 JMIR study reproduced cardiac prediction algorithms across two open datasets; in its heart-failure experiments, false-negative rates were significantly higher for women in thirteen of sixteen tests. A 2023 JAMA Network Open vignette study also found that changing demographic characteristics could change recommendations made by clinicians and AI chatbots. The REBOOT trial (NEJM, August 2025, n=8,505) found beta blockers, the standard post-heart-attack drug for four decades, raised the risk of death, another heart attack, or heart failure by 45% in women with preserved heart function, with no such effect in men. That is a guideline built on male trial data, actively harming patients it was never tested on.

THE GOVERNANCE QUESTION

This is not a fairness footnote, it is a question of clinical validity. A model or a guideline that "works on average" may still fail, or actively harm, the people it was never tested on.

Sources: FemTechnology & Women At The Table, Invisible by Design: Women's Health as the Blind Spot in AI and Medicine (2025), citing the High-STEACS trial; Straw, Rees, and Nachev (2024); Kim et al., JAMA Network Open (2023); npj Digital Medicine review on the MELD score; REBOOT trial, New England Journal of Medicine (August 2025, n=8,505).

02 // THE ECONOMIC JOURNEY

Invisible care work cascades through every system that scores a life.

THE GAP

Unpaid caregiving is one of the largest economic contributions in the world, the ILO values it at roughly 9% of global GDP, and one of the least visible in formal data. None of it appears on a résumé. None of it appears in a credit history. None of it appears in a social-security earnings record. To the systems learning from these datasets, decades of labor look like absence.

HOW THE MODEL INHERITS IT

The blind spot compounds. Hiring systems can penalise résumé gaps that reflect unpaid care. The same pattern can enter care administration itself. A 2025 study used gender-swapped versions of records for 617 adult-social-care users. Gemma described men’s physical and mental health more directly and underemphasised women’s needs more often. Because care is allocated by assessed need, the authors concluded that these summaries could influence how urgently or extensively support is provided.

THE GOVERNANCE QUESTION

The system penalises work it was never built to see, and the same architecture now determines what gets allocated back to the people doing it. Which forms of socially necessary labour are categorised as absence, and which lives are quietly scored as less complex than they are?

Sources: ILO estimates of unpaid care work; Harvard Business School, Hidden Workers; Rickman / LSE Care Policy & Evaluation Centre (2025), Evaluating Gender Bias in Large Language Models in Long-Term Care; cited in FemTechnology & Women At The Table, Invisible by Design (2025).

03 // THE CAPITAL PATHWAY

When biology is poorly measured, women pay the premium.

THE GAP

Insurance and health pricing can treat observed differences in claims as fixed biological risk. FemTechnology's 2026 research asks whether some of that difference is instead downstream of locatable, correctable failures in the clinical pathway, including diagnostic thresholds built on male cohorts, dosing rules built without sex-specific pharmacokinetics, and trial designs that systematically under-recruit female participants.

HOW THE MODEL INHERITS IT

The IQVIA Institute's 2025 review of 182 medical disorders found female trial participation below parity in 43% of trials between 2015 and 2024. Zucker and Prendergast's 2020 review of 86 FDA-approved drugs found higher pharmacokinetic values in women for 76 drugs; 96% of drugs with female-biased values were associated with more adverse reactions in women. The open question for AI-enabled underwriting is whether downstream cost created by miscalibrated evidence or care pathways will be treated as fixed biological risk instead of a correctable failure.

THE GOVERNANCE QUESTION

Should AI-driven actuarial and pricing models be permitted to absorb as "biological risk" what is in fact a measurable failure of clinical measurement? How should regulators require pricing models to disaggregate biology from pathway?

Sources: FemTechnology, Pricing the Pathway: An Agenda for the Actuarial Profession (2026), citing IQVIA Institute (2025), Women in Clinical Trials; Zucker and Prendergast (2020), Biology of Sex Differences; FDA Drug Safety Communication on zolpidem (2013); Test-Achats, Case C-236/09, Court of Justice of the European Union (2011).

04. SESSION CONVERSATION

What the conversation made clear.

The session brought together people governing, building, and living with AI systems across health, labor, public services, and civil society.

The shared concern was practical: a system cannot be called fit for purpose if the evidence does not show who it works for, where it fails, and what happens after deployment.

05. SESSION OUTCOME WSIS FORUM 2026
SESSION 184
7 JULY · GENEVA

OUTCOME PUBLISHED

Fit for purpose cannot mean fit on average.

This session produced a public artifact: a short test for high-risk AI that governments, researchers, builders, procurers, and deployers can use when aggregate performance is not enough.

A CONTINUATION OF THE ARCHITECTURE

The Architecture of Women’s Health ↗ mapped how evidence, care pathways, financing, research, and policy interact. Fit for Whom? carries that architecture into AI governance: before a system is scaled through one of those pathways, its evidence should show who it works for, where it fails, and who can challenge the result.

If an AI system affects women but cannot demonstrate how it performs for women, it should not be described as validated for women.

WSIS Forum 2026 · Session 184 outcome
First page of the Fit for Whom session outcome document 3-PAGE OUTCOME DOCUMENT · PDF Fit for Whom?

Sex-Stratified Data and the Integrity of High-Risk AI

Open document ↗3 pages · A4
07. HEALTH AS THE TEST CASE

Health makes the citizen-to-government AI problem visible.

We use health because it shows the whole chain in one place: lived experience enters a record, the record becomes model input, the model shapes a public or commercial decision, and that decision changes care, work, money, or trust. The same chain appears in employment, welfare, insurance, justice, and public administration. Health is the test case, not the limit of the argument.

A PUBLIC LEDGER, NOT A CAUSAL CLAIM

Swiss IV paid CHF 5.69B in pensions in 2024. The figure shows the scale of a public system that could be connected to better pathway evidence. It does not show that diagnostic delay caused that spending.

Read the BSV source ↗
THE CITIZEN BRIDGE

What if a person could add verified context to the record before an average hardens into a rule? The aim is not to score lived experience. It is to give citizens a way to be seen by the systems that allocate care, work support, insurance, and public resources. A model is trustworthy only if it can show what it knows, who it misses, and who can challenge the result.

09. APPLY THE OUTCOME

Put the outcome to work.

The useful next step is concrete: either help convene the next working session, or bring a live system where existing administrative data and structured citizen experience can produce an artifact someone can act on. The aim is not another dashboard. It is a better decision.

HOST OR HELP SHAPE A WORKING SESSION

For public institutions, funders, researchers, and hosts who want to bring citizen reality, evidence integrity, and public decisions into one room, with a possible future Geneva moment if the work earns it.

Discuss a session ↗
BRING A LIVE SYSTEM

For governments, health systems, insurers, life-sciences teams, and AI builders who want to commission or co-design a scoped pathway and evidence test.

Bring a live system ↗