Checklist · AI decision systems
Reassessment when a model, purpose or provider changes
Checklist for when the model, the purpose, the data or the provider of a decision system changes, asking which earlier conclusions have to be made again and by whom.
- Kind
- Checklist. Steps or checks to work through and tick off.
- 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 5 authorities it cites, for Australia.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use when a vendor notifies a model change, the client proposes a new use, or the contract changes subprocessors or location. It points back to the inventory, the risk table and the test record. It does not replace them.
Used for these tasks
- Draft a privacy-impact or algorithmic-impact assessment for the system
- Build a legal-risk table for a client's AI 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 set out what the vendor's notice says has changed, quoted from that notice. The principal decides which earlier conclusions are no longer reliable.
AI may
- Quote the vendor's notice into the change row, with the date of the notice
- List the earlier inventory, risk table and test record on the file
AI must not
- Must not decide that an earlier approval still stands
- Must not treat a vendor's statement that the change is minor as a legal conclusion
- Must not update the privacy policy
The lawyer checks
- The change is taken from the notice or the new contract, not from a newsletter summary
- The principal has said which of APP 1.7, APP 6, APP 8 and the earlier test must be looked at again
- Any privacy-policy wording is changed only by the principal, and only if the classification still requires it
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)
- Record that a person reviewed an automated output
- File note of a generative AI confidentiality incident (United States)
- AI decision system impact and fairness assessment (firm or client systems)
- 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