## 3 Initial Results
### The Pathways--A Layered Implementation Strategy for the CF-BIAI-SXT Framework
\(\bullet\) & Encode and enforce ethical norms \(\bigcirc\) & Governance must ensure adherence to principles like fairness, privacy, accountability, and non-discrimination. \(\bigcirc\) & Recent frameworks offer guidance for ethical AI deployment [147]. \(\bullet\) & Enable dynamic policy adaptation \(\bigcirc\) & Regulatory rules must evolve with technology. Blockchain-based systems allow real-time enforcement without intermediaries. \(\bigcirc\) & Smart contracts can facilitate fluid, programmable policy [148]. \(\bullet\) & Maintain trust through institutional alignment \(\bigcirc\) & Ethical governance models must be aligned with legal norms and societal values to avoid deviation from initial commitments due to technical updates, commercial incentives, or regulatory gaps. \(\bigcirc\) & Trust frameworks should be embedded to guide system evolution [149; 150]. 3.3 The Trust, Oversight, and Continuous Evaluation Layer (How Legitimacy, Transparency, and Ethical Compliance Are Monitored?) This third layer operationalizes the ethical backbone of the system, enabling the prevention and resolution in real-time of violations. _Key elements to be considered: accountability, resilience, and societal trust_. Trust is central for BIAI in high-risk digital environments; therefore, ensuring it becomes crucial to the effectiveness of the framework. This depends on the capacity of the BIAI systems for transparent operation, reliable oversight, and responsive error correction, which may be achieved through a monitoring and auditing mechanism that fulfills three core functions:Verifiability and Immutable Logging, Smart Contract-Based Enforcement and Dispute Resolution, and Real-Time Oversight and Adaptive System Monitoring. Complementary safeguards include system-level logging and auditability, ethics penetration testing, sandboxing and staged rollouts, third-party algorithmic audits, and participatory evaluation (users, survivors, civil society). In addition, these functions interact, as verifiability ensures post hoc accountability, smart contract enforcement addresses real-time disputes, and adaptive monitoring ensures forward-looking risk detection. Lastly, the successful implementation of BIAI systems hinges not just on technical readiness but on their sustained alignment with evolving ethical, regulatory, and operational expectations. Although highly advanced techniques may improve performance, the societal impact resides in the capacity of the technical solution to be embedded within a responsive and accountable governance framework. Even more so in high-risk domains like sextortion, where maintaining public trust and resilience over time is as important as initial system effectiveness. Therefore, implementation must be acknowledged as a process of iterative socio-technical coordination, not a one-off deployment. To address the widely noted issue on tension between blockchain immutability and legal rights such as the \"right to be forgotten\", the framework suggests a hybrid storage solution. PII (personally identifiable information) is never written to the chain. Instead, on-chain only hashed pointers or zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) are kept, linking to off-chain encrypted records stored in the possession of the respective users in what we call a data wallet. Data deletion can therefore be implemented through revocation of the keys and off-chain deletion, and the on-chain reference to the data is left ungatherable yet the audit integrity is maintained in the blockchain. This is consistent with the position of the framing interpretations of the EU (e.g., EDPB guidance), which acknowledge a functional deletion or economic inaccessibility as a reasonable way of applying data erasure. Additional compliance is enforced through the provision of consent-granting timestamps, which allow fine-grained audit trails for legal attestation.