arXiv:2505.10426v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The legal compliance and safety of different Human-in-the-loop (HITL) setups for AI can vary greatly. This manuscript aims to identify new ways of choosing between such setups, and shows that there is an unavoidable trade-off between the attribution of legal responsibility and the technical explainability of AI. We begin by using the notion of oracle machines from computability theory to formalise different HITL setups, distinguishing between trivial human monitoring, single endpoint human action, and highly involved interaction between the human(s) and the AI. These correspond to total functions, many-one reductions, and Turing reductions respectively. A taxonomy categorising HITL failure modes is then presented, highlighting the limitations on what any HITL setup can actually achieve. Our approach then identifies oversights from UK and EU legal frameworks, which focus on certain HITL setups which may not always achieve the desired ethical, legal, and sociotechnical outcomes. We suggest areas where the law should recognise the effectiveness of different HITL setups and assign responsibility in these contexts, avoiding unnecessary and unproductive human "scapegoating". Overall, we show how HITL setups involve many technical design decisions, and can be prone to failures which are often out of the humans' control. This opens up a new analytic perspective on the challenges arising in the creation of HITL setups, helping inform AI developers and lawmakers on designing HITL to better achieve their desired outcomes.