---
title: "Set a process for a person to challenge a decision the system made or informed"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/set-a-process-for-a-person-to-challenge-a-decision-the-system-made-or-in"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A45-WR20261022-4"
practice_area: "AI decision systems (the firm's and clients')"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Set a process for a person to challenge a decision the system made or informed

> From the decisions the system makes or informs, draft the steps a person would follow to challenge the use of the system or the outcome.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/set-a-process-for-a-person-to-challenge-a-decision-the-system-made-or-in  
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 | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the decisions the system makes or informs, draft the steps a person would follow to challenge the use of the system or the outcome. Align the steps with guardrail 7, which says organisations should have processes for people affected to challenge use or outcomes. Do not decide whether a statutory review right also exists. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides the real path: internal challenge, a privacy complaint, a statutory review, or more than one. The lawyer approves the process before it is offered to people affected. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Source-by-source verification**

Trace relied-on content to independent sources and check for relevant material the output has missed.

- What the AI does: From the decisions the system makes or informs, draft the steps a person would follow to challenge the use of the system or the outcome. Align the steps with guardrail 7, which says organisations should have processes for people affected to challenge use or outcomes. Do not decide whether a statutory review right also exists.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides the real path: internal challenge, a privacy complaint, a statutory review, or more than one. The lawyer approves the process before it is offered to people affected.
- 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.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Separate the voluntary guardrail 7 process from any statutory review or privacy complaint the lawyer identifies.
2. Confirm the process names how a person is told of the outcome and how a human decision-maker is reached.
3. Confirm the draft does not promise a remedy the lawyer has not identified.

## 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

- [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)
- [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)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/set-a-process-for-a-person-to-challenge-a-decision-the-system-made-or-in/united-states.md) | Yellow |

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