A model validation team is challenged by a model owner who argues that an explainable AI technique (LIME) used during validation is itself imperfect and therefore the validation findings are invalid. How should the validation team respond?

The correct response is to acknowledge LIME's limitations but defend its use as one of several corroborating validation techniques, not as a sole determinant. LIME has known approximation limitations, but that does not invalidate its use as one component of a multi-method validation approach. Good validation practice triangulates findings across multiple techniques rather than relying on any single method. Removing LIME-based findings would undermine validation independence. Replacing LIME with SHAP and relying solely on SHAP just shifts the same argument to another technique. Escalating to regulators is disproportionate for a methodological debate.