Determine the appropriate level of human involvement in AI decisions
Under Singapore Model AI Governance Framework, Second edition, Part on human involvement in AI-augmented decision-making
Source-linked
Open official source
What does it require?
Using a risk-impact matrix (probability and severity of harm), organisations choose human-in-the-loop, human-over-the-loop or human-out-of-the-loop designs and document the rationale.
Practical action
Record the human-involvement choice and rationale for each AI decision point.
Who does it apply to?
Voluntary for any organisation deploying AI for decisions.
- Sectors
- Cross-sector / all sectors
Evidence examples
- Risk-impact assessment and human-involvement decision (record)
Framework mappings
Original editorial crosswalks. They cite clause numbers only and reproduce no standard text; confidence reflects how direct the mapping is.
| Framework | Reference | Note | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| NIST AI RMF 1.0 | GOVERN 3.2, MANAGE 2.x | Original editorial mapping. | medium |
Similar obligations in other instruments
- Apply safeguards to solely automated decisions with significant effects — ICO AI guidance, United Kingdom
- 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
- Provide routes to contest AI outcomes and seek redress — UK AI regulation framework, United Kingdom (voluntary)
- Test and monitor systems, enable human control, and be transparent with users (guardrails 4 to 6) — Australian Voluntary AI Safety Standard, Australia (voluntary)
Informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult qualified counsel before acting.