Assess whether the system is high-risk under the EU AI Act (29d39b)

SITUATION Chief AI officer is responsible for the system is high-risk in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm, using explainability pack for a denied-credit decision as the only working extract. A board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' is what reset the timeline for this AI Governance Policy and Oversight file.

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 explainability pack for a denied-credit decision after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Authorize Policy or governance breach now; explainability pack for a denied-credit decision already has the discriminator after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'. 2. Keep Model defect in force until explainability pack for a denied-credit decision is completed after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' for chief AI officer. 3. Treat explainability pack for a denied-credit decision as Dual failure because both readings appear after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'. 4. Refuse a AI Governance close: chief AI officer does not have the decision the system is high-risk turns on in explainability pack for a denied-credit decision.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Verify data provenance and the human-oversight gate chief AI officer can actually point to. 2. Walk the model input/output path recorded in explainability pack for a denied-credit decision and mark each hop approved, shadow, or unlogged. 3. Verify data provenance and the human-oversight gate chief AI officer can actually point to. 4. For this AI Governance Policy and Oversight file, read explainability pack for a denied-credit decision against a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' and write the one fact that would move the system is high-risk 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 (explainability pack for a denied-credit decision after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'). If explainability pack for a denied-credit decision cannot force a AI Governance label under Policy and Oversight, stop. Do not invent missing evidence a city using a hiring-screen algorithm does not have.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line AI Governance option on the system is high-risk, then the evidence in explainability pack for a denied-credit decision, then the action for chief AI officer - Hypothesis scorecard against explainability pack for a denied-credit decision: supported / rejected / untestable - Missing page in explainability pack for a denied-credit decision after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable', if any - Regulatory or exam hook Policy and Oversight would cite