Contribution to the handbook
Priority · Assessed 2026-10-27
Notice, access to evidence and reasoning, and appeal to an impartial decision-maker are concrete safeguard proposals with implications for accountability and remedies. The evidence also notes that technical limits may impede review.
Does this challenge the goal?
In-scope gap
It identifies possible procedural safeguards for people affected by predictive systems, within the handbook’s accountability and remedy goals.
The evidence describes proposed rights and a historical legal account, not proof that these safeguards ensure adequate review in practice.
Why this category?
- material safeguard specification
- accountability and remedy
- implementation limitation
The historical legal account is limited to how a cited directive was described in the paper; this packet does not establish current legal status or practical effectiveness.
This is an AI assessment of contribution to the goal, separate from whether the question has an answer.
Judging situations and resolving disputes →
Authority, accountability and resilience →
Read the exploration goalIdentify the proposed rights to notice, examination of the evidence and reasoning, and appeal to an impartial decision-maker.
What we can say so far
Crawford and Schultz propose that people affected by automated systems have the right to be told when they have been targeted, to examine the evidence and reasoning used, and to appeal to an impartial decision-maker, such as a court. The source presents these rights for a wider range of uses than the credit-assessment focus discussed immediately before them.
What remains open
No material gap is recorded within this part’s current scope.
Conditions and limits
- The answer is based on an AI interpretation of the readable author manuscript from an accessible mirror, not the publisher’s typeset version.
- The passage distinguishes the proposal’s wider scope from the preceding credit-assessment discussion.
- The passage does not establish whether the rights would overcome technical limits on review.
Evidence and related ideas
Supporting evidence, qualifications and context play different roles in this answer.
context
People need to examine the factors The author says a broad account of an algorithm’s purpose is not enough when it is used to exercise authority over citizens. He argues that, out of respect for citizens’ moral equality, people must be able to examine and question the factors the system uses, though they need not understand every technical detail.
Describes the author’s view that people should be able to examine and question factors used by a system; it does not identify Crawford and Schultz’s proposed rights.
The Threat of Algocracy: Reality, Resistance and Accommodation
Read full source: The Threat of Algocracy: Reality, Resistance and Accommodation (opens in a new tab) ↗Read source discussion: The Threat of Algocracy: Reality, Resistance and Accommodation →
context
Review and possible override Human review is presented as an approach between resisting automated decisions and adapting to them: people would be able to examine decisions and, in some cases, overrule them.
Describes human review and possible override as an approach, rather than specifying Crawford and Schultz’s proposal.