LensReading which lens this session carries.

Fairness readings computed on modeled data demonstrate the instrument, not a real audit result. The grid below is produced by the same code that would run against a real population; the population underneath is modeled.

Govern · people-affecting decision · HR2A

Interview slot allocation

Allocates interview slots across panels and candidates. Low stakes individually, but slot quality and time-to-interview vary by cohort and that variation compounds.

All decision points
People affected
2,140
Each month
Decision kind
Allocation
A lower rate is the harm
Readings
18
0 below the reporting floor
Outside threshold
0
across 6 periods
Open alarms
2
2 raised in total
Appeals
0
0 changed the original outcome

Who is accountable, and what the oversight actually is

Named, with the measure written out rather than implied by a role title.

Agent
Scheduling Agent
Autonomy: A3
Accountable human
Coordinator on the requisition
Recruiting coordinator
Oversight measure
Exception review only. A candidate waiting more than ten working days is escalated to a coordinator automatically.
Review cadence
Quarterly
Reviewer: Priya Raman
On schedule
Monitoring status
Monitored
Readings computed for every reporting period and every declared cohort.

Regulatory position

How this decision is classified and what the affected person can see.

Risk class
Limited risk — EU AI Act Article 50
Allocation of interview slots. Not an Annex III evaluation, but it interacts directly with candidates and so carries a transparency duty.
Explanation surface
Published
A standing explanation is available to the affected person without asking.
How the outcome is contested
Recruiting coordinator, via the candidate portal
Service level: 48 hours to a human response
Full risk record for this agent

Selection rate by cohort, by period

Impact ratio against the reference cohort. A cell with no reading means the sample was too small to compute one — it is not a pass.

CohortReferenceMar 2026Apr 2026May 2026Jun 2026Jul 2026Aug 2026
Women
Gender
Men
0.98
88.6% · n=942
0.99
92.0% · n=942
0.97
92.9% · n=942
0.98
89.3% · n=942
0.99
93.1% · n=942
0.98
95.3% · n=942
Asia Pacific
region
Americas
0.88
82.8% · n=621
0.87
84.0% · n=621
0.86
79.0% · n=621
0.85
80.5% · n=621
0.84
82.0% · n=621
0.83
77.5% · n=621
EMEA
region
Americas
0.96
92.4% · n=728
0.95
88.7% · n=728
0.94
85.1% · n=728
0.95
90.4% · n=728
0.93
85.9% · n=728
0.94
86.9% · n=728
Within thresholdMoving but not yet outsideOutside the disparity thresholdSample below the reporting floor· means no reading exists for that period
Cohorts declared for monitoring that never produced a single reading
Gender · Non-binary and self-described — No reading has ever been produced for Non-binary and self-described on this decision. The cohort is declared in scope and the population exists, but it has never once been large enough to report against Men at the confidence this program requires.

Alarms on this decision point

Each with the action recorded against it and the person who owns it.

FAIR-0005Never reportableLow
170 days openMonitoring
No reading has ever been produced for Non-binary and self-described on this decision. The cohort is declared in scope and the population exists, but it has never once been large enough to report against Men at the confidence this program requires.
Action: Either aggregate this cohort across decisions and periods so a reading becomes possible, or state on the record that this cohort is not monitored here and why. Leaving the cell empty is the one option that is not defensible.
Owner: Nadia Kovac · Data Protection Officer
FAIR-0006Sustained driftMedium
170 days openAcknowledged
The ratio for Asia Pacific has moved from 0.88 to 0.83 across 6 periods without ever breaching. This is inside tolerance and heading out of it, which is the reading a threshold alone would miss.
Action: Extrapolate the trend to the threshold, put a date on it, and bring that date to the next review rather than waiting for the breach.
Owner: Nadia Kovac · Data Protection Officer

Appeals against this decision

Every contest recorded, with who reviewed it, how long they spent and what changed.

RefSubjectGroundsRouted toService levelHuman timeOutcomeEvidenceStatus
No appeal has been raised against this decision. That may mean the decision is uncontroversial, or it may mean the affected people do not know they can contest it.
How to read this page

The impact ratio is the cohort’s selection rate divided by the reference cohort’s. For a decision where being selected is the benefit, the threshold is four-fifths and a ratio below it is the alarm. For a decision where being selected is the harm, the test is inverted and a ratio above 1.25 is the alarm. Both are stated on the reading rather than left to the reader.

A reading is only computed when the cohort and the reference cohort each carry at least thirty people and at least five events. Below that, no ratio is produced and the cell stays empty. This is the single most common way a fairness dashboard misleads — a small cohort producing a comfortable number — and it is refused here by construction.

This decision runs in US, UK, SG, AU, DE. Local law shapes what may be measured: where a works council agreement or a local statute restricts cohort analysis, the exclusion is recorded in the monitoring status rather than silently applied.