Give a consumer a correction and an appeal after an adverse consequential decision
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- From the decision record, list the adverse result, the data the file says the system processed, and whether a correction path or an appeal path is already described. Do not write the statement of reasons.
- What the lawyer must review
- Section 6-1-1703(4)(b) requires the deployer, if the consequential decision is adverse, to give a statement of the principal reasons, including the degree and manner of the system's contribution, the type of data processed, and the source of that data. The deployer must also give an opportunity to correct incorrect personal data that the system processed, and an opportunity to appeal. The appeal must, if technically feasible, allow for human review, unless providing the appeal is not in the best interest of the consumer, including where delay might pose a risk to the life or safety of the consumer. The lawyer decides whether the decision is adverse and settles what is sent.
- Written for / version
- United States versionUS
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Consider narrowly defined preparation support after confirming the tool’s capability and permitted scope. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
- Confirm instructions and personal circumstances through appropriate direct engagement. Have the responsible lawyer assess safety, capacity or vulnerability concerns and escalation.
- Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.