---
title: "Advise whether a decision about a person may be left to the system"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/advise-whether-a-decision-about-a-person-may-be-left-to-the-system"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A45-WR20261022-7"
practice_area: "AI decision systems (the firm's and clients')"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Advise whether a decision about a person may be left to the system

> List the decisions the system makes or substantially informs, and set out the unanswered APP 1.7 questions and the guardrail 5 question of meaningful human oversight.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/advise-whether-a-decision-about-a-person-may-be-left-to-the-system  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [AI decision systems (the firm's and clients')](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | List the decisions the system makes or substantially informs, and set out the unanswered APP 1.7 questions and the guardrail 5 question of meaningful human oversight. Do not answer those questions and do not write the advice. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides whether any decision that could significantly affect a person's rights or interests may proceed on the system output alone, and writes the advice. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer-led judgement**

The lawyer makes the substantive assessment. Any permitted AI assistance remains supporting work with its own checks.

- What the AI does: List the decisions the system makes or substantially informs, and set out the unanswered APP 1.7 questions and the guardrail 5 question of meaningful human oversight. Do not answer those questions and do not write the advice.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides whether any decision that could significantly affect a person's rights or interests may proceed on the system output alone, and writes the advice.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Practical workflow informed by the linked primary sources; the traffic light and working checks are editorial guidance, not a court classification.
- Why: The level reflects what the work is, the consequence of an error, and how much of the output the lawyer must independently re-derive.
- Restriction: The lawyer makes the substantive assessment. Any permitted AI assistance remains supporting work with its own checks.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Confirm the advice is in the lawyer's words and that no generated sentence has been pasted into it.
2. Confirm each decision is tested against APP 1.7 where personal information is used, separately from the voluntary guardrail.
3. Record the decisions that must not proceed on the system output alone.

## Notes

- These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Sources

- [OAIC: New resources on transparency for use of AI and automated decision-making (30 September 2026)](https://www.oaic.gov.au/news/media-centre/new-resources-on-transparency-for-use-of-ai-and-automated-decision-making) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [Department of Industry, Science and Resources: Voluntary AI Safety Standard — the 10 guardrails](https://www.industry.gov.au/publications/voluntary-ai-safety-standard/10-guardrails) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/advise-whether-a-decision-about-a-person-may-be-left-to-the-system/united-states.md) | Red |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*