Form · AI decision systems
Record that a person reviewed an automated output
Short record that a named person reviewed one automated output before anyone acted on it, what they checked, and whether they departed from it. It does not say that human review removes a privacy-policy duty.
- Kind
- Form. A form to complete, or a guide to completing an official one.
- Where it applies
- Australia
- AI use
- Yellow You and the tool draft together, with you directing. You check every statement you rely on.
- Law stated as at
- 22 October 2026
- Status
- Maintained. Checked on 22 October 2026 against the 3 authorities it cites, for Australia.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use each time a person is required, by the firm's or the client's own rule, to review an automated output before it is acted on. It is not a statutory form and it is not sworn evidence.
Used for these tasks
- Map automated decisions that affect individuals in the firm's or client's system
- Draft a privacy-impact or algorithmic-impact assessment for the system
Each task page says how far AI may help with the task and what the lawyer must review.
How AI may be used
AI may open a blank record and insert the system name and the output identifier from the log. The reviewer writes what they checked and how they decided.
AI may
- Create the record with the system name, time and output identifier taken from the log
- Leave the reviewer's narrative empty
AI must not
- Must not write the reviewer's reasons or state that the output was correct
- Must not say that this review means APP 1.7 does not apply
- Must not sign the record
The lawyer checks
- The reviewer is a person who was authorised to override the output, and they completed the record before the output was acted on
- The record does not claim a statutory safe harbour
- If the output is used in legal work, the reviewer is personally able to verify it, as the joint statement requires of solicitors
Method: how the Green, Yellow and Red levels are decided. This is guidance for planning, not legal advice.
Read the full text
The full text is available after you log in. It is free. When you log in you can:
- read the whole precedent, with its drafting notes beside it;
- copy it, or download it as a Word file or Markdown;
- add it to your firm’s knowledge base, so colleagues can find it;
- let the AI tools you connect read it from that knowledge base.
The summary, the law it rests on and the AI-use guidance above stay public. Privacy.
More in AI decision systems
- Inventory of automated decisions that affect individuals
- Law firm AI use policy (master firm policy)
- Law firm generative AI use policy (United States)
- Approved AI tools register (template with field guide)
- Record of a test for different results across groups
- Approval and training record for a generative AI tool (United States)
- AI vendor due-diligence questionnaire for law firms (master version)
- Legal risk table for a client's AI system
- How to mark generative AI output in the file (United States)
- AI incident response procedure for law firms (master procedure for all AI incidents)
- File note of a generative AI confidentiality incident (United States)
- AI decision system impact and fairness assessment (firm or client systems)
- Reassessment when a model, purpose or provider changes
- Privacy policy clause on automated decisions (APP 1.7 to 1.9, from 10 December 2026)
All precedents for AI decision systems · Tasks and AI use in this area