Offer meaningful human review of an adverse consequential decision
Download: JSON · MarkdownUnder Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189)
What this label means
- Verified
- — a named reviewer opened the official source and confirmed the record; the date and the reviewer are shown.
- Pending review
- — linked to the official source and in the queue for a reviewer to confirm.
- Source-linked
- — linked to the official source, not yet confirmed by a reviewer.
On this page 7 sections
In brief
Offer meaningful human review of an adverse consequential decision is a legal requirement under the Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189) in Colorado (United States). A consumer who receives an adverse consequential decision may obtain meaningful review by a person with the authority and information to change the outcome. It applies from 1 January 2027.
- Instrument
- Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189)
- Jurisdiction
- Colorado (United States)
- Nature
- Legal requirement
- Applies from
- 1 January 2027
- Who it binds
- Deployer / user organisation
- Controls that meet it
- 2
- Official source
- Open official text
- Verification
- Pending review · source-linked
What does it require?
A consumer who receives an adverse consequential decision may obtain meaningful review by a person with the authority and information to change the outcome. Scope and timing follow the enrolled bill.
Practical action
Staff and document a human-review channel with authority to reverse decisions.
Who does it apply to?
Applies from:
Which controls meet this duty?
Satisfies: the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports: it contributes but the duty needs more. Each control page lists every other duty it serves, so work done once can be counted once.
-
satisfiesProcessAI system owner · once per ai systemHuman oversight design and override procedure
Serves 13 recorded duties · evidence: Human oversight and override procedure, Human-involvement design rationale, Overseer training completion
A reviewer with authority to change the outcome.
-
supportsProcessCustomer operations lead · once per ai systemDecision explanation, human review and appeal route
Serves 14 recorded duties · evidence: Adverse-decision explanation template, AI decision challenge and human review procedure, Challenge and reversal log
The request channel that leads to review.
Templates that cover this duty
Generated from the records. Free · no account · links emailed to your work address. This duty is cited in each file with its source reference and a link back here.
- Human Oversight Procedure
Procedure · DOCX and XLSX · v6
- AI Agent Registry and Permission Matrix
Register · XLSX and DOCX · v7
- Colorado ADMT Law (SB 26-189) Notices
Kit · DOCX and XLSX · v3
- AI Literacy and Training Plan
Procedure · XLSX and DOCX · v5
Frequently asked questions
Is this a legal requirement?
Yes. It is a legal requirement under Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189).
When does this obligation apply?
It applies from 1 January 2027.
Which controls satisfy this obligation?
Human oversight design and override procedure; Decision explanation, human review and appeal route.
What should an organisation do in practice?
Staff and document a human-review channel with authority to reverse decisions.
Cite this record
AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Offer meaningful human review of an adverse consequential decision (Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189))” [AIPT-OBL-0096, not yet verified]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0096 (accessed 12 November 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.
Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0096: it never changes or gets reused, and its address keeps working if this page moves.
Cite the official text alongside it: SB26-189 Automated Decision-Making Technology, Colorado General Assembly, https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb26-189.
BibTeX
@misc{aipolicytracker2026_offermeaningfulhumanrevi,
author = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
title = {{Offer meaningful human review of an adverse consequential decision (Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189))}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-colorado-admt-human-review}},
url = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-colorado-admt-human-review},
urldate = {2026-11-12},
note = {Data licensed CC BY 4.0. Accessed 12 November 2026}
}
Change history
No change to this record's tracked fields has been recorded since 15 October 2026, when field-level history began.
Similar obligations in other instruments
- Employers and employment agencies must let candidates request an alternative selection process or accommodation — NYC Local Law 144 (automated employment decision tools), New York (United States)
- Apply safeguards to solely automated decisions with significant effects — ICO AI guidance, United Kingdom
- Let consumers opt out of automated decision-making technology for significant decisions, or offer a qualifying human appeal — California CPPA automated decision-making rules, California (United States)
- Enable and assign effective human oversight — EU AI Act, European Union
- Respect the right to object to automated decision-making without human intervention — UAE PDPL, United Arab Emirates
- Operators of high-impact AI must ensure human management and supervision — AI Basic Act, South Korea
- Test and monitor systems, enable human control, and be transparent with users (guardrails 4 to 6) — Australian Voluntary AI Safety Standard, Australia (voluntary)
- Determine the appropriate level of human involvement in AI decisions — Singapore Model AI Governance Framework, Singapore (voluntary)
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.