All courses / AI Boss / Module 6 / Chapter 27
Learning objectives
After the lesson the participant can:
- Write an explanation with the four elements the chapter requires, including an actionable counterfactual.
- Describe the five parts of an appeal path and the rule that the decider may grant but never reject.
- Specify correction at five layers and the condition on which a contestation record closes.
- Interpret contest patterns, including the absence of contests, as signals about a system and its oversight.
Key concepts
- Four-element explanation
- The role of the system and its logic in a sentence a person can repeat; the inputs about the person, and only those; a counterfactual naming an input that could actually change; and the human decider with how to reach them.
- First-look rule
- The decider may grant a contest in full and correct the decision at once, but may not reject it or grant it in part; those go to independent review. The decider can say yes; only the reviewer can say no.
- Independent review
- Review by someone who has not taken, approved or advised on the decision and is not the system, its supplier or an agent. An AI system may summarise evidence at Level 0 Advisory but never drafts the finding.
- Five layers of correction
- The decision is changed and loss made good; the data is corrected at source; the rule is changed and written as a test; the model is retrained or withdrawn where it erred; and the register is updated.
- Contest patterns
- A rising rate of contests granted on review, a cluster about one rule or group, or no contests at all from a system making thousands of decisions. Each calls for action, and silence is not evidence that the system is right.
Interactive exercises
Do them here and get feedback at once. Choose a card and then where it belongs, or drag it.
Interactive exercise 1 · Put in order
The appeal path
Put the five parts of the chapter's appeal path in the order a contest passes through them.
Interactive exercise 2 · Sort
What a successful contest corrects
A successful contest can correct the decision, the data, the rule and the register. Sort each outcome of the book's two first contests under the layer it corrects.
Teaching plan
| 15 min | The teacher presents the three justifications for contest and the warning from the automated debt-recovery scheme: individual reviews succeeded while the system stayed in place. |
| 15 min | Participants rewrite a formal explanation of a route into the four-element form, with a counterfactual that names something the organisation can change. |
| 20 min | Walk through CNT-NR-0001 from oral contest to closed record: first look, review, findings, the five layers of outcome and the test that closed it. |
| 30 min | Exercise: groups build an appeal path for one management system and run a test contest through it on paper. |
| 10 min | Debrief on contest patterns and the triggers in version 4 of DLG-HM-SPS-01, and on contestability as a condition of delegation. |
Discussion
- The route in CNT-NR-0001 was lawful and unworkable, and only the person doing the work could see it. What does that imply for how much weight an organisation gives to contests compared with automated checks?
- Why does the chapter forbid the decider to reject a contest at the first look, even when the decider is sure the decision was right?
- A system that makes thousands of decisions and receives no contests may be unknown, distrusted or feared. How would you find out which?
Written exercise
Exercise · 30 minutes
An appeal path with a test contest
Build an appeal path for one management system at Nordvik Region, Hansa Mutual or your own organisation. From its delegation profile, list the contestable decision types with their deciders. Write the explanation template with the four elements. Name receivers and reviewers by role, each with a deputy, and state who is excluded from review. Set the time limits for acknowledgement and answer, and what happens to a pay effect while a contest is open. Write the first-look rule. Define correction at the five layers, each with an owner and a test. Then run one invented contest through the path and write its contestation record, including the system correction and the condition on which the record closes.
Deliverable: A one-page appeal path with roles, limits, first-look rule and correction layers, and a completed contestation record in the form of CNT-NR-0001.
Self-test
Choose an answer to see whether it is right, or open the answer below each question.
What did the review of CNT-NR-0001 find to be the cause of the route with no time between two visits?
Show the answer
C. Both addresses were geocoded to the same postcode centroid, so routed travel time was 0 minutes
The data was corrected to address-level coordinates and the rule changed to a minimum travel time written as a test. The rest-rule flag did not fire because no working-time rule was breached.When does a contestation record close, according to the chapter?
Show the answer
B. When the system correction has passed its test
A contestation is a finding reported by the person best placed to find it, and a finding is closed only when the re-test passes. CNT-NR-0001 stayed open until the travel-time test was verified.Under version 4 of DLG-HM-SPS-01, what happens to the pay effect of a quarterly score while it is contested?
Show the answer
D. It is provisional and corrected in the next salary run
The 15-working-day answer limit for pay inputs across several national arrangements is justified only because the pay effect stays provisional; a contest is also never an input to any M2 Evaluation of the person.