Offer meaningful human review of an adverse consequential decision

Practical action

Staff and document a human-review channel with authority to reverse decisions.

Who does it apply to?

Actors

Deployer / user organisation

Sectors

Employment and HRFinancial services and creditHealthcare and life sciencesEducation and trainingPublic services and government

Use cases

AI in hiring and employmentAI in healthcareAI in finance, credit and insuranceAI in educationAI in public services

Applies from: 1 January 2027

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 system
  Human oversight design and override procedure

  Serves 12 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 system
  Decision explanation, human review and appeal route

  Serves 12 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: this duty is cited in each file with its source reference and a link back here.

• Human Oversight Procedure

  Procedure · DOCX and XLSX · v1

• AI Agent Registry and Permission Matrix

  Register · XLSX and DOCX · v1

• Colorado AI Act Notices

  Kit · DOCX and XLSX · v1

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))”. https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-colorado-admt-human-review (accessed 27 September 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.

Cite the official text alongside it: SB26-189 Automated Decision-Making Technology, Colorado General Assembly, https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb26-189.

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)
• 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 — Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust, South Korea
• Apply safeguards to solely automated decisions with significant effects — ICO AI guidance, United Kingdom
• Determine the appropriate level of human involvement in AI decisions — Singapore Model AI Governance Framework, Singapore (voluntary)
• 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)