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 · HR8A

Merit and pay recommendation

Produces the recommended merit increase per employee within the manager budget, using rating, position in band and market data.

All decision points

People affected

5,210

Each month

Decision kind

Scoring

A lower rate is the harm

Readings

0 below the reporting floor

Outside threshold

across 6 periods

Open alarms

1 raised in total

Appeals

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

Merit Cycle Agent

Autonomy: A2

Accountable human

Marcus Weill, VP Total Rewards, as final reviewer

Line manager and reward partner

Oversight measure

Manager approval required on every recommendation. A pay-equity check runs after manager input and before submission; any increase that widens a flagged gap is held for reward partner review.

Review cadence

Per cycle, annual, with a mid-cycle equity read

Reviewer: Marcus Weill with Nadia Kovac

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

High risk — EU AI Act Annex III(4)(b)

Employment: a system used in decisions affecting terms of the work relationship, specifically pay.

Explanation surface

Published

A standing explanation is available to the affected person without asking.

How the outcome is contested

Marcus Weill, VP Total Rewards

Service level: 240 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.

Cohort	Reference	Mar 2026	Apr 2026	May 2026	Jun 2026	Jul 2026	Aug 2026
Women Gender	Men	0.97 57.7% · n=2,292	0.97 60.6% · n=2,292	0.98 59.4% · n=2,292	0.97 57.0% · n=2,292	0.98 60.6% · n=2,292	0.98 58.7% · n=2,292
Minority ethnic groups, aggregated Ethnicity	Majority group (per local reporting standard)	0.96 57.5% · n=1,615	0.95 56.2% · n=1,615	0.96 58.6% · n=1,615	0.97 58.5% · n=1,615	0.96 59.7% · n=1,615	0.97 60.1% · n=1,615
Over 10 years tenure-band	2 to 5 years	0.99 60.8% · n=886	1.00 60.9% · n=886	0.99 62.2% · n=886	1.00 62.1% · n=886	0.99 58.5% · n=886	1.00 63.0% · n=886
Under 2 years tenure-band	2 to 5 years	0.93 57.0% · n=1,771	0.94 55.9% · n=1,771	0.93 58.1% · n=1,771	0.94 57.0% · n=1,771	0.95 55.8% · n=1,771	0.94 55.3% · n=1,771

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-0012Never 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

Appeals against this decision

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

Ref	Subject	Grounds	Routed to	Service level	Human time	Outcome	Evidence	Status
APL-0010	EMP-10771 employee · UK	Employee asks for the pay-equity check result that applied to their recommendation.	Marcus Weill VP Total Rewards	264 / 240 hr	—	Pending	HR8A-1046#1	Past service level
APL-0004	EMP-09931 employee · AU	Employee questions the market benchmark used to set the band position.	Marcus Weill VP Total Rewards	205 / 240 hr	64 min	Original upheld Benchmark verified as the correct market cut for the role and location. The band position explanation was rewritten to be legible to the employee.	HR3A-1025#1	Closed

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. 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.