Human Oversight Procedure
Using this in a product? Commercial use is allowed under CC BY 4.0, with attribution. Ask about an SLA-backed feed or a white-label licence.
On this page 7 sections
In brief
The Human Oversight Procedure is a free DOCX and XLSX procedure for EU AI Act and Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189). A procedure for the humans who oversee an AI system: what they must be able to do, when they intervene, how an override is recorded, drawn from every recorded oversight duty.
- Format
- DOCX and XLSX · Procedure
- Version
- v6, built 12 Nov 2026
- Duties cited
- 10 from 10 instruments
- Rows from the records
- 10
- 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
- Document: roles, competence, the oversight measures each recorded duty requires, intervention and override, escalation
- Override log sheet: date, system, decision overridden, reason, reviewer
Preview
The sheets and sections of version v6, as built. Columns marked ▾ have a dropdown; ƒ is a formula.
Sheet: Override log
| Log ID | Date | System | Output or decision overridden | Action taken ▾ | Reason | Overseer | Reviewed by | Reported as incident ▾ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rows are yours to fill; the dropdowns, formulas and colour rules are already in place. | ||||||||
Sheet: Oversight 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test and monitor systems, enable human control, and be transparent with users (guardrails 4 to 6) | Human oversight | Australian Voluntary AI Safety Standard | Australia | Deployer / user organisation, Provider / developer | Voluntary | Guardrails 4, 5 and 6 | Test AI models and systems before deployment and monitor them in operation; enable meaningful human control and intervention; and inform end users about AI-enab | Test reports and user disclosure records | MEASURE and MANAGE functions | Pending review · source-linked | https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/australia-vaiss-testing-human-control-transparency | ||
| Let consumers opt out of automated decision-making technology for significant decisions, or offer a qualifying human appeal | Human oversight | California CPPA automated decision-making rules | California (United States) | Deployer / user organisation | Legal requirement | Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 7221 | 2027-01-01 | Consumers must be able to opt out of the use of ADMT for a significant decision, through at least two designated methods that are easy to use and need minimal s | The opt-out link, form and second method, and a log of requests with dates received and processing stopped; Notices sent to service providers and contractors ab | Pending review · source-linked | https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-california-ccpa-admt-opt-out | ||
| 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 | Pending review · source-linked | https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-colorado-admt-human-review | ||||
| Enable and assign effective human oversight | Human oversight | EU AI Act | European Union | Provider / developer, Deployer / user organisation | Legal requirement | Article 14; Article 26(2) for deployers | 2027-12-02 | High-risk systems must be designed with human-machine interface tools so natural persons can effectively oversee them, understand capacities and limitations, av | Human oversight procedure and role assignment | Annex A control on human oversight | GOVERN 3.2, MANAGE 2.x | Pending review · source-linked | https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/eu-ai-act-human-oversight |
| 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 |
| Determine the appropriate level of human involvement in AI decisions | Human oversight | Singapore Model AI Governance Framework | Singapore | Deployer / user organisation | Voluntary | Second edition, Part on human involvement in AI-augmented decision-making | 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 | Risk-impact assessment and human-involvement decision | GOVERN 3.2, MANAGE 2.x | Pending review · source-linked | https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/singapore-mgf-human-involvement |
Document outline (DOCX)
- 1. Purpose
- 2. Roles and competence
- 3. What the overseer must be able to do
- 4. When to intervene
- 5. Recording an intervention
- 6. Duties this procedure serves
- Test and monitor systems, enable human control, and be transparent with users (guardrails 4 to 6)
- Let consumers opt out of automated decision-making technology for significant decisions, or offer a qualifying human appeal
- Offer meaningful human review of an adverse consequential decision
- Enable and assign effective human oversight
- Employers and employment agencies must let candidates request an alternative selection process or accommodation
- Determine the appropriate level of human involvement in AI decisions
- Operators of high-impact AI must ensure human management and supervision
- Respect the right to object to automated decision-making without human intervention
- 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 (v6), 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 "Override log" sheet for your own systems. Dropdowns, formulas and colour rules are already set.
- 4Check the duties against your situation. The "Oversight 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 (1. Purpose, 2. Roles and competence, 3. What the overseer must be able to do, 4. When to intervene) 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 (10)
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)
- Let consumers opt out of automated decision-making technology for significant decisions, or offer a qualifying human appeal
- Offer meaningful human review of an adverse consequential decision
- Enable and assign effective human oversight
- Employers and employment agencies must let candidates request an alternative selection process or accommodation
- Determine the appropriate level of human involvement in AI decisions
- Operators of high-impact AI must ensure human management and supervision
- Respect the right to object to automated decision-making without human intervention
- Provide routes to contest AI outcomes and seek redress
- Apply safeguards to solely automated decisions with significant effects
Legal basis
Version history
| Version | Built | Dataset | What changed |
|---|---|---|---|
| v6 | ef1018b7a6a2 | Dataset 4559f86f527b → ef1018b7a6a2. Sheet "Oversight duties": 9 → 10 rows (+1). Document: 65 → 71 blocks. Record citations: 18 → 20. | |
| v5 | 4559f86f527b | Dataset 1e8ea28a8a93 → 4559f86f527b. | |
| v4 | 1e8ea28a8a93 | Dataset 52bd836b1d6b → 1e8ea28a8a93. | |
| v3 | 52bd836b1d6b | Dataset 3335c39da4b7 → 52bd836b1d6b. | |
| v2 | 3335c39da4b7 | Dataset 914895c3103e → 3335c39da4b7. Sheet "Oversight duties": 8 → 9 rows (+1). Document: 60 → 65 blocks. Record citations: 16 → 18. | |
| v1 | 914895c3103e | First version, built from dataset 914895c3103e. |
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 Human Oversight Procedure?
Document: roles, competence, the oversight measures each recorded duty requires, intervention and override, escalation. Override log sheet: date, system, decision overridden, reason, reviewer.
Which duties does it cite?
10 recorded duties from Australian Voluntary AI Safety Standard, California CPPA automated decision-making rules, Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189) and EU AI Act, including Guardrails 4, 5 and 6, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 7221, Article 14; Article 26(2) for deployers, NYC Administrative Code Section 20-871(b)(1); 6 RCNY Section 5-303, Second edition, Part on human involvement in AI-augmented decision-making and Article 34(1). 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 v6 was built on 12 November 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.