The canon · Oversight · AIS-6.3

Describe human review and override capability where an AI system contributes to an adverse consumer outcome, and provide override rates.

This is one of the twenty-five questions a carrier reviewer sends a vendor, in the words an examiner uses. Below it: the answers that make a reviewer stop on this item, derived by running Vaulith's rules engine on an estate that gets everything wrong, and the free questions that reach it.

What stops a reviewer here

One finding reaches this item.

Will escalateR-NO-HUMAN-OVERRIDE · blocks this item

No human review before a consumer outcome on MDL-001

The model can reach a consumer without a person able to review or override it first. This is the question a carrier asks earliest about anything touching claims or underwriting, because it decides whether the insurer or the vendor owns the outcome. An answer of no does not end a review, but it moves the conversation from your controls to their appetite, and that is a conversation held at a level you are not in the room for.

To fix: Put a person in the path, or document precisely where the boundary sits: which decisions are advisory, which are automatic, and what the reviewable population is. A reviewer can accept an automated path that is bounded and described. They cannot accept one that is neither.

How it is scored

Credit per verdict, times the weight.

A critical item carries weight 3. A pass earns 1.00 of it, a questioned answer 0.60, an escalated one 0.20 and a stop 0.00. An unanswered item earns nothing and still takes the citation penalty, so a profile cannot be improved by leaving an inconvenient question blank. The whole arithmetic is shown on the homepage and in every assessment.

Try it in ninety seconds

The free snapshot asks about this.

Nine questions, free. See what they stop on.