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 · HR7C

Succession and promotion slate

Builds the candidate slate for each critical role. Who appears on the slate largely determines who is considered at all.

All decision points
People affected
610
Each month
Decision kind
Selection
A lower rate is the harm
Readings
30
0 below the reporting floor
Outside threshold
7
across 6 periods
Open alarms
4
4 raised in total
Appeals
2
1 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
Succession Slate Agent
Autonomy: A2
Accountable human
Morgan Idris, chairing the talent council
Talent council
Oversight measure
The talent council reviews every slate and must record a reason when it accepts a slate unchanged. Slates of fewer than four names are rejected automatically.
Review cadence
Quarterly
Reviewer: Priya Raman
On schedule
Monitoring status
Alarm open
At least one cohort is outside the disparity threshold and the alarm is unresolved.

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 to make decisions affecting promotion. Slate construction determines who is considered.
Explanation surface
On request
An explanation is produced when the affected person asks for it.
How the outcome is contested
Morgan Idris, Function Leader
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.

CohortReferenceMar 2026Apr 2026May 2026Jun 2026Jul 2026Aug 2026
Women
Gender
Men
0.86
7.5% · n=268
0.84
7.7% · n=268
0.82
7.3% · n=268
0.79
7.3% · n=268
0.77
7.0% · n=268
0.74
6.5% · n=268
Minority ethnic groups, aggregated
Ethnicity
Majority group (per local reporting standard)
0.88
7.8% · n=189
0.87
7.6% · n=189
0.85
7.7% · n=189
0.84
7.5% · n=189
0.82
7.5% · n=189
0.81
7.3% · n=189
40 to 49
age-band
30 to 39
0.94
8.8% · n=140
0.93
8.4% · n=140
0.92
8.1% · n=140
0.91
8.4% · n=140
0.90
8.1% · n=140
0.89
7.8% · n=140
50 and over
age-band
30 to 39
0.81
7.2% · n=85
0.80
7.5% · n=85
0.79
7.1% · n=85
0.78
6.8% · n=85
0.77
7.1% · n=85
0.75
6.7% · n=85
Under 30
age-band
30 to 39
1.11
10.3% · n=165
1.13
10.0% · n=165
1.15
10.4% · n=165
1.16
10.9% · n=165
1.18
10.5% · n=165
1.20
11.0% · n=165
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-0008Threshold breachHigh
78 days openOpen
Women is being selected at 74 percent of the rate for Men, below the four-fifths threshold. The breach has held for 3 of the six periods.
Action: Hold the decision at the current autonomy level, re-run the cohort with the ranking features ablated one at a time to find what is carrying the disparity, and record the finding against this decision point before the next cycle opens.
Owner: Priya Raman · Chief People Officer
FAIR-0009Never 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-0010Sustained driftMedium
170 days openAcknowledged
The ratio for Minority ethnic groups, aggregated has moved from 0.88 to 0.81 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
FAIR-0011Threshold breachHigh
109 days openOpen
50 and over is being selected at 75 percent of the rate for 30 to 39, below the four-fifths threshold. The breach has held for 4 of the six periods.
Action: Hold the decision at the current autonomy level, re-run the cohort with the ranking features ablated one at a time to find what is carrying the disparity, and record the finding against this decision point before the next cycle opens.
Owner: Priya Raman · Chief People Officer

Appeals against this decision

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

RefSubjectGroundsRouted toService levelHuman timeOutcomeEvidenceStatus
APL-0008
EMP-08117
employee · US
Employee questions why a peer with shorter tenure appeared on a slate they were excluded from.
Morgan Idris
Function Leader, chairing the talent council
233 / 240 hr87 minOriginal upheld
Slate criteria and both assessments shared. The council confirmed the original slate and recorded the reasoning.
HR3A-1045#1Closed
APL-0003
EMP-11284
employee · UK
Employee was not on the slate for a role they had been developed toward for two cycles.
Morgan Idris
Function Leader, chairing the talent council
188 / 240 hr95 minPartially upheld
Added to the slate for the next cycle. The council recorded that the readiness signal the agent used was two cycles out of date.
HR3B-1010#1Closed
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.