Auditing a transformer is not auditing a credit-scoring rule, and a panel where over half the room comes from policy and journalism is going to write a book that treats AI systems primarily as objects of governance rather than as engineered artifacts with specific failure modes, which is exactly what the publisher description suggests it does. A lawyer, historian or a journalist on the team is useful for explaining audits to the public, but you would not put a humanities expert on the team designing the audit methodology for a frontier model, and the book's framing slightly elides that difference. Calling them all "experts in AI auditing" on equal footing is marketing, not an accurate description of who is qualified to do what. Overall, an okay intro, but doesn't cover the depth it should and that I expected from the forefront names that were selling it.