AI Decision Explanation and Appeal Kit
In brief
The AI Decision Explanation and Appeal Kit is a free DOCX and XLSX kit for EU AI Act and Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189). Version v1, built 5 October 2026, cites 22 recorded duties from 13 instruments, each linked to its official source. It is written for deployer / user organisation, provider / developer and public authority / government body.
- Format
- DOCX and XLSX · Kit
- Version
- v1, built 5 Oct 2026
- Duties cited
- 31 from 13 instruments
- Rows from the records
- 11
- Frameworks
- EU AI Act, Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189)
- Written for
- Deployer / user organisation, Provider / developer, Public authority / government body
- Price and licence
- Free · CC BY 4.0
What's inside
- Notice and explanation letter templates
- Human review procedure
- Request log with days-taken formula
- Explanation and appeal duties across every jurisdiction on record
Preview
The sheets and sections of version v1, as built. Columns marked ▾ have a dropdown; ƒ is a formula.
Sheet: Requests log
| Reference | Received | AI system | Request ▾ | Reply due | Replied | Days taken ƒ | Outcome ▾ | Human reviewer | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rows are yours to fill; the dropdowns, formulas and colour rules are already in place. | |||||||||
Every request from a person about an AI-assisted decision, with the time taken to answer it. Set the reply-due date from the rule that applies to you.
Sheet: Explanation and appeal duties
| Duty | Category | Instrument | Jurisdiction | Who it binds | Nature | Source reference | Applies from | What it requires | Evidence a reviewer expects | ISO/IEC 42001 | NIST AI RMF | Verification | Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provide contestability, supply-chain transparency and records (guardrails 7 to 9) | Vendor and supply-chain governance | Australian Voluntary AI Safety Standard | Australia | Deployer / user organisation, Provider / developer | Voluntary | Guardrails 7, 8 and 9 | Establish processes for people impacted by AI to challenge use or outcomes; be transparent with other organisations across the AI supply chain about data, model | AI system register and supplier disclosures | GOVERN 6.x | Source-linked | https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/australia-vaiss-contestability-supply-chain-records | ||
| Disclose the use of the technology and the principal reasons after an adverse consequential decision | Transparency and disclosure | Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189) | Colorado (United States) | Deployer / user organisation | Legal requirement | 2027-01-01 | After an adverse consequential decision, the deployer must tell the consumer that automated decision-making technology was used, give the principal reasons for | Source-linked | https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-colorado-admt-adverse-decision-disclosure | ||||
| Offer meaningful human review of an adverse consequential decision | Human oversight | Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189) | Colorado (United States) | Deployer / user organisation | Legal requirement | 2027-01-01 | A consumer who receives an adverse consequential decision may obtain meaningful review by a person with the authority and information to change the outcome. Sco | Source-linked | https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-colorado-admt-human-review | ||||
| Deployers must tell natural persons that a high-risk AI system is used in decisions about them | Transparency and disclosure | EU AI Act | European Union | Deployer / user organisation, Public authority / government body | Legal requirement | Article 26(11) | 2027-12-02 | Deployers of Annex III high-risk AI systems that take decisions about natural persons, or help take them, must inform those persons that they are subject to the | Affected-person notice template and placement record | Annex A.8.5 | GOVERN 5.1, MANAGE 4.1 | Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026 | https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/eu-ai-act-art-26-11-notice-to-affected-persons |
| Deployers must explain individual decisions taken with high-risk AI on request | Transparency and disclosure | EU AI Act | European Union | Deployer / user organisation, Public authority / government body | Legal requirement | Article 86 | 2027-12-02 | A person affected by a decision that a deployer took on the basis of the output of an Annex III high-risk AI system, other than critical-infrastructure systems, | Explanation request procedure and template; Register of explanation requests and responses | Annex A.8.5, A.9.2 | GOVERN 5.1, MANAGE 4.1 | Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026 | https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/eu-ai-act-art-86-right-to-explanation |
| Employers and employment agencies must let candidates request an alternative selection process or accommodation | Human oversight | NYC Local Law 144 (automated employment decision tools) | New York (United States) | Deployer / user organisation | Legal requirement | NYC Administrative Code Section 20-871(b)(1); 6 RCNY Section 5-303 | 2023-07-05 | The advance notice to candidates and employees must allow them to request an alternative selection process or a reasonable accommodation. The DCWP rules make cl | Alternative-process and accommodation request log | Annex A.9.2 | GOVERN 5.1, MANAGE 4.1 | Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026 | https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-new-york-city-local-law-144-alternative-process-request |
The recorded duties served by an explanation and appeal route, across every jurisdiction on record.
Document outline (DOCX)
- Adverse decision explanation and appeal kit
- Adverse decision notice (template)
- Explanation reply (template)
- Human review procedure
- Duties on record
- Provide contestability, supply-chain transparency and records (guardrails 7 to 9)
- Disclose the use of the technology and the principal reasons after an adverse consequential decision
- Offer meaningful human review of an adverse consequential decision
- Deployers must tell natural persons that a high-risk AI system is used in decisions about them
- Deployers must explain individual decisions taken with high-risk AI on request
- Employers and employment agencies must let candidates request an alternative selection process or accommodation
- Operators of high-impact AI must be able to explain outputs and the main criteria behind them
- Respect the right to object to automated decision-making without human intervention
- Provide appropriate transparency and explainability
- Provide routes to contest AI outcomes and seek redress
- Apply safeguards to solely automated decisions with significant effects
How to use it
- 1Request the files. Enter your name, company and work email in the form on this page. The DOCX and XLSX download links arrive by email and work for 7 days.
- 2Read the README page. It states the version (v1), the dataset it was built from and the licence, so anyone reviewing your copy knows which records it reflects.
- 3Fill in your rows. Complete the "Requests log" sheet for your own systems. Dropdowns, formulas and colour rules are already set.
- 4Check the duties against your situation. The "Explanation and appeal duties" sheet lists the recorded duties with their source references. Mark which apply to you and follow each link to the official text.
- 5Complete the document. Work through the DOCX sections (Adverse decision explanation and appeal kit, Duties on record) and replace each placeholder with your organisation's answer.
- 6Keep the evidence and watch for new versions. Link each completed row to the evidence that supports it. When the law on record changes, this template gets a new version and a changelog on this page.
Duties this template covers (31)
Each is cited in the file with its source reference and a link back to the record.
- Test and monitor systems, enable human control, and be transparent with users (guardrails 4 to 6)
- Frontier developers must publish a transparency report before deploying a new frontier model
- Notify consumers before automated decision-making technology influences a consequential decision
- Disclose the use of the technology and the principal reasons after an adverse consequential decision
- Offer meaningful human review of an adverse consequential decision
- Provide deployers with clear instructions for use
- Enable and assign effective human oversight
- Disclose AI interaction and label synthetic content
- Employers must inform workers and their representatives before using high-risk AI at work
- Deployers must tell natural persons that a high-risk AI system is used in decisions about them
- Providers of generative AI must mark synthetic output as artificially generated in a machine-readable way
- Deployers of emotion recognition or biometric categorisation must inform exposed persons
Legal basis
Version history
| Version | Built | Dataset | What changed |
|---|---|---|---|
| v1 | c6967b988bb5 | First version, built from dataset c6967b988bb5. |
Only the latest version is served. A rebuild that changes the content adds a version; a rebuild that does not is skipped.
Frequently asked questions
What is in the AI Decision Explanation and Appeal Kit?
Notice and explanation letter templates. Human review procedure. Request log with days-taken formula. Explanation and appeal duties across every jurisdiction on record.
Which duties does it cite?
31 recorded duties from Australian Voluntary AI Safety Standard, California SB 53, Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189) and EU AI Act, including Guardrails 4, 5 and 6, Business and Professions Code Section 22757.12 (as added by SB 53), Article 13, Article 14; Article 26(2) for deployers, Article 50 and Article 26(7). Each row links to the record, and the record to the official source.
Who is it for?
The duties it cites fall on deployer / user organisation, provider / developer and public authority / government body. Whoever owns AI governance for those roles usually completes it, with the system owner supplying the facts.
Is it free?
Yes. Request the DOCX and XLSX with your work email on this page; the download links arrive by email, valid for 7 days. No account and no charge. Licensed CC BY 4.0. You may use, adapt and share this template, including commercially, with attribution to aipolicytracker.org.
How will I know when it changes?
Version v1 was built on 5 October 2026. The library is rebuilt daily; when a change to the records reaches this template it gets the next version, a changelog below and an entry in the templates feed.
Does completing it make us compliant?
No. It is an informational resource, not legal advice; it helps produce the evidence a regulator, customer or auditor asks for. Whether a duty applies to you is a judgement the template cannot make.
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.