<![CDATA[The rapid advance of emerging technologies—including artificial intelligence, decentralized financial platforms, and automated public decision-making systems—presents a fundamental pacing challenge for legal and administrative frameworks. Traditional statutory regulation, anchored in static ex-ante rules and deliberate legislative processes, struggles to adapt to algorithmic business models, giving rise to persistent regulatory lag. In response, administrative authorities globally have embraced regulatory sandboxes as premier instruments of experimental governance. By enabling firms to test novel applications under supervised, time-bound regulatory relief, sandboxes seek to foster administrative agility and reduce information asymmetries between regulators and market actors. However, substituting general statutory rules with administrative discretion creates severe tensions with core public law principles. This paper examines the governance dynamics of regulatory sandboxes across two central themes: first, the conceptual foundations and comparative typologies of sandboxes in balancing administrative agility with legal certainty; and second, the imperative of preserving public accountability, avoiding regulatory capture, and safeguarding baseline rights within experimental legal regimes. Synthesizing insights from administrative law and regulatory policy, this study demonstrates that sandboxes must not operate as Light-Regulation zones or informal liability shields. Instead, experimental governance requires a structured Accountability and Liability Protocol grounded in explicit statutory authority, mandatory supply-chain role mapping, non-waivable consumer protections, and rigorous supervisory transparency.]]>
