Assess whether the vendor can be used in a regulated process (5c6b47)

SITUATION In a city using a hiring-screen algorithm, hiring-tool adverse-impact tables is the evidence after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose. Board AI liaison has to pick Policy or governance breach or Model defect for this AI Governance Bias and Training Data close using hiring-tool adverse-impact tables.

DECISION Board AI liaison 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 new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Board AI liaison can defend Policy or governance breach from hiring-tool adverse-impact tables after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose in a AI Governance challenge. 2. Board AI liaison cannot defend Policy or governance breach from hiring-tool adverse-impact tables; Model defect is what the extract actually supports after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose. 3. A new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose never reached the population in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables — reopen intake, do not close the vendor can be. 4. Two facts in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose conflict for board AI liaison; hold this Bias and Training Data file.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Reproduce the incident row in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables and say whether it ever touched production data. 2. Split policy-or-governance failure from a model defect using prompts, outputs, and human edits in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables. 3. Reproduce the incident row in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables and say whether it ever touched production data. 4. For this AI Governance Bias and Training Data file, read hiring-tool adverse-impact tables against a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose and write the one fact that would move the vendor can be for board AI liaison.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance / Bias and Training Data packet (hiring-tool adverse-impact tables after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose). The follow-on Bias and Training Data action is what board AI liaison does next: implement the option, assign an owner, and log the missing fact.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line AI Governance option on the vendor can be, then the evidence in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables, then the action for board AI liaison - Hypothesis scorecard against hiring-tool adverse-impact tables: supported / rejected / untestable - Regulatory or exam hook Bias and Training Data would cite - Bias and Training Data finding in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables that a second reviewer can re-perform