Table 2

Cross-case distribution and evidential basis of interaction patterns

Interaction patternConstituent dimensionsSupporting informantsContextual distributionEvidential basis
Regulatory risk and technological defensibilityRisk allocation ambiguity × epistemic transparency/data robustnessR2, R5, R8, R9, R18, R21, R25, R29US, France, Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland, BelgiumDirect + cross-case
Institutional support and organisational mobilisationNational digital scaffolding × economic alignment/capability orchestrationR1, R3, R9, R18, R19, R22, R25, R26, R27, R28US, Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland, UK, EstoniaPrimarily cross-case
Organisational capability and sustainability of clinical AICapability orchestration × data robustnessR1, R2, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R19, R22, R28, R29US, France, Netherlands, Singapore, Estonia, BelgiumDirect + cross-case
Economic incentives and development of trustEconomic alignment × epistemic transparencyR3, R5, R9, R22US, SingaporePrimarily cross-case
Environmental risk and strategic prioritisationRisk allocation ambiguity × capability orchestrationR3, R5, R9, R18, R21, R22, R25US, Netherlands, Singapore, SwitzerlandPredominantly direct + cross-case

Note(s): Direct support refers to explicitly articulated relationships, whereas cross-case support reflects relationships identified through comparative abductive analysis. Informant distributions indicate evidential breadth, not statistical prevalence

Source(s): Authors’ own work
[ViewLarge]
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options