All courses / AI Boss / Module 5 / Chapter 24
Learning objectives
After the lesson the participant can:
- Explain why safety, equality and public-law duties cannot be passed to a supplier.
- Distinguish a constraint enforced as a feasibility condition from one weighed as a penalty, and say how to test which it is.
- Explain how the burden of proof turns a disparate-impact test into the employer's evidence.
- Write verifiable tender requirements for an AI system that performs management functions.
Key concepts
- Duties to show
- Read as duties to show, the Framework Directive requires a risk assessment that names the system and the groups exposed, a record of consultation before every substantial change, and evidence that protective measures work.
- Burden of proof
- Once a worker establishes facts from which discrimination may be presumed, the respondent must prove there was no breach. The employer must then justify the rule with evidence it already holds.
- Pay criterion
- A score that feeds variable pay. Under the Pay Transparency Directive pay criteria must be objective and gender neutral, so the employer must be able to state the score readably and show it gender neutral.
- Model employer
- A public authority that closes the gap in administrative law by choice: it gives reasons for every M3 Consequence decision and every contested M1 Direction decision in a record, and offers review by a person who can change the outcome.
- Requirement set
- Specifications, award criteria, contract conditions and review clauses that keep logs, stop path, constraint tests, outcome data and the configuration of delegation in the authority's hands, tested at acceptance and on every release.
Interactive exercises
Do them here and get feedback at once. Choose a card and then where it belongs, or drag it.
Interactive exercise 1 · Sort
Four procurement instruments
Chapter 24 names four instruments that Directive 2014/24/EU gives a public buyer. Sort each requirement under the instrument the chapter uses for it.
Interactive exercise 2 · Scenario
Reasons for a contested roster
Apply the chapter's account of the public authority as a model employer to the situation below.
Teaching plan
| 15 min | The teacher presents the three duties that stay with the employer and reads the Framework Directive as a list of things to show. |
| 15 min | Worked reasoning: how a rule that never sees a protected characteristic can disadvantage a group, and what the employer must produce once a disparity is shown. |
| 15 min | Presentation of the public authority as employer and the four procurement instruments, with the gap that tender NR-2025-089 left. |
| 35 min | Exercise: groups write a requirement set for a procured management system, with a verification for each requirement. |
| 10 min | Debrief with the answers to Q10 and Q11 and the equality-test release condition in version 1.4 of DLG-HM-REC-01. |
Discussion
- The chapter says delegating nothing in M5 Care is not the same as meeting the duty. What does Hansa Mutual's claims queue show about that?
- A model employer gives reasons beyond what administrative law strictly requires of an employer. What are the costs and benefits of doing so?
- Nordvik must buy its evidence; Hansa must build it. Which position is harder, and what does each need from its governance?
Written exercise
Exercise · 35 minutes
Tender requirements for a management system
Write a requirement set for a procured AI system that performs management functions, for Nordvik Region's next ShiftWise release or for a public or private buyer you know. Map the functions and the intended degree of delegation, excluding Level 4 Autonomous for any M3 Consequence function. Write at least six requirements, each with its type (specification, award criterion, contract condition or review clause), its basis and a verification the buyer can run itself: constraints as feasibility conditions with seeded-breach tests, records with rule and model version, a stop path held by the buyer, explanation and access, equality evidence, and new features arriving switched off. State what is excluded and with whom the set is negotiated before publication.
Deliverable: A requirement set in the form of NR-PRQ-MGT-01 with at least six requirements, each with type, basis, text and verification, plus the exclusions and the negotiation step.
Self-test
Choose an answer to see whether it is right, or open the answer below each question.
How does requirement R1 of NR-PRQ-MGT-01 verify that the constraints are enforced as feasibility conditions?
Show the answer
B. By the Region's own seeded-breach suite of 12 breaches per release, of which none may reach a manager
R1 answers with a test result and not a supplier statement the question the original tender did not ask. Only a test that tries to break a constraint shows whether it is a feasibility condition or a penalty.What does version 1.4 of DLG-HM-REC-01 add to the equality monitoring of TalentLens?
Show the answer
A. A release condition: no release or criteria change takes effect until the test has run and every trigger has a recorded decision
Version 1.3 monitored selection rates but set no threshold and required no correction. The release condition gives the burden of proof something to rest on, with suspension of the affected stage on a trigger.What is the chapter's answer to Q11, what replaces the manager's judgement in the duty of care?
Show the answer
D. Nothing replaces it: a system can carry protective constraints and flags, while managers need the span and representatives the access for the rest
A system can carry hard constraints at Level 3 Bounded, flags at Level 1 Assisted and team-level strain indicators. It cannot carry the attention of a manager who knows the team, so the duty becomes a requirement on the organisation.