Govern · agent risk record · Human Resources

Merit Cycle Agent

depth-agent

All agents

Risk class

High risk

EU AI Act Annex III(4)(b)

Status

Operating

Oversight

Marcus Weill, VP Total Rewards

Reward partner

Explanation

Published

Reward statement issued to every employee at cycle close

Appeal path

Named human

240h service level

Conformity

Self-assessed

assessed 12d ago

Classification

Why this agent sits in this class, under which regime

Regime

EU AI Act Annex III(4)(b)

Class

High risk — Affects access to employment, credit or a comparable material interest. Requires human oversight, logging and contestability.

Basis

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

People affecting

Yes — the output changes an outcome for a named person

Scope

human-resources · human-resources/total-rewards

Registered

268d ago

Log retention

84 months of decision logs retained

Conformity

Self-assessed — Assessed by the operator. Not independent.

Human oversight

The measure, and the person it is attached to

Measure

Manager approval on every recommendation, followed by an automated pay-equity check that holds any increase widening a flagged gap.

Named human

Marcus Weill, VP Total Rewards · Reward partner

Autonomy

Transparency notice

Served — the affected person is told an automated system is involved

Explanation surface

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

Explanation reference

Reward statement issued to every employee at cycle close

How an affected person contests this

The route, the named human at the end of it, and the service level

2 appeals on record

Route

Marcus Weill, VP Total Rewards

Path type

Named human

The appeal lands with a person, not a queue.

Service level

240 hours

1 appeal past that service level right now.

Reference	Subject	Grounds	Routed to	Age	Review	Outcome	Evidence
APL-0010 Past service level	EMP-10771 employee · UK · HR case management	Employee asks for the pay-equity check result that applied to their recommendation.	Marcus Weill VP Total Rewards	264h of 240h	— human time	Pending	HR8A-1046 #1
APL-0004 Closed	EMP-09931 employee · AU · HR case management	Employee questions the market benchmark used to set the band position.	Marcus Weill VP Total Rewards	205h of 240h	64m human time	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

Adverse-impact readings behind this agent

Merit and pay recommendation · Aug 2026

Full monitoring record

Monitoring status

Monitored

Population a month

5,210

Review cadence

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

Marcus Weill with Nadia Kovac

Last reviewed

12d ago

Cohort	Compared with	n	Selection rate	Reference rate	Impact ratio	Reading
Minority ethnic groups, aggregated Ethnicity	Majority group (per local reporting standard)	1,615	60.1%	62.0%	0.97	Within threshold Minority ethnic groups, aggregated is selected at 97 percent of the rate for Majority group (per local reporting standard).
Women Gender	Men	2,292	58.7%	59.9%	0.98	Within threshold Women is selected at 98 percent of the rate for Men.
Under 2 years tenure-band	2 to 5 years	1,771	55.3%	58.8%	0.94	Within threshold Under 2 years is selected at 94 percent of the rate for 2 to 5 years.
Over 10 years tenure-band	2 to 5 years	886	63.0%	63.0%	1.00	Within threshold Over 10 years is selected at 100 percent of the rate for 2 to 5 years.

Open alarms on this decision point

Derived from the readings, never authored by hand

FAIR-0012Never reportableLow severityMonitoring

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.

Owner Nadia Kovac · opened 170d ago

What this record is, and what it is not

Read this before quoting anything above

Fairness readings computed on modeled data demonstrate the instrument, not a real audit result. The classification, the oversight measure, the explanation surface and the appeal route are design decisions recorded here so they can be argued with; the population behind the readings is modeled.

No agent on this register carries an independent third-party conformity assessment. Every assessment on file was made by the operator.

Appeal outcomes are recorded against the evidence spine where a unit reference exists. Where the evidence column reads “not recorded”, the appeal was resolved outside the spine and that is a gap, not a rounding.