Assess whether an agent may take actions without a human gate (50cef6)

Situation

Policy and Oversight work in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm now turns on an agent may take because a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' put hiring-tool adverse-impact tables in play. Chief AI officer should say what hiring-tool adverse-impact tables proves.

Decision

Chief AI officer in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm must choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact using hiring-tool adverse-impact tables after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'.

Hypotheses to test

• A board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' is noise around an already-controlled Policy and Oversight process in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm, given hiring-tool adverse-impact tables.
• A board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' is the event in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables that forces Policy or governance breach for chief AI officer under AI Governance.
• Hiring-tool adverse-impact tables shows a one-file miss after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable', not a Policy and Oversight program failure.
• Hiring-tool adverse-impact tables cannot decide an agent may take yet after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'; hold is the only AI Governance close a city using a hiring-screen algorithm can defend.

Analysis required

• Verify data provenance and the human-oversight gate chief AI officer can actually point to.
• Walk the model input/output path recorded in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables and mark each hop approved, shadow, or unlogged.
• Verify data provenance and the human-oversight gate chief AI officer can actually point to.
• For this AI Governance Policy and Oversight file, read hiring-tool adverse-impact tables against a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' and write the one fact that would move an agent may take for chief AI officer.

Recommendation

Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance / Policy and Oversight packet (hiring-tool adverse-impact tables after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'). Lead with the AI Governance option hiring-tool adverse-impact tables can support after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable', then the two facts that force it, then the Monday action for chief AI officer in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm.

Command returns

• Bottom-line AI Governance option on an agent may take, then the evidence in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables, then the action for chief AI officer
• Hypothesis scorecard against hiring-tool adverse-impact tables: supported / rejected / untestable
• Owner and next date for chief AI officer in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm
• What changes an agent may take if a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' is later withdrawn