Could you defend your AI hiring toolif a regulator asked tomorrow?

The evidence dossier you, the deployer, can produce for an automated employment decision tool (AEDT) used in hiring or promotion — the independent bias audit, the candidate notices, the published summary, the human-review and appeal path, the recordkeeping, and the data-source / proxy governance. It returns DOSSIER READY AS DESCRIBED, SHORTFALL, or EVIDENCE GAP per tool. It scores the file, never a candidate or employee.

Because two controls are gates. If there is no independent bias audit on file, or candidates were never notified before the tool evaluated them, the verdict is EVIDENCE GAP no matter how strong everything else is. For NYC Local Law 144, the required audit must be conducted by an auditor who satisfies NYC’s independence criteria — a vendor’s internal self-assessment is not, by itself, that audit, though a vendor may arrange for a qualifying independent auditor. The shipped Resume-screener sample scores 76 and still reads EVIDENCE GAP for exactly that reason. Confirm what the independence criteria require for your tools with qualified employment counsel.

It grades against a composite US readiness baseline rather than any single statute. These controls combine selected obligations and governance practices drawn from multiple US jurisdictions. Not every control is legally required for every tool, employer, location, or employment decision. Confirm scope and applicable requirements before treating a missing control as legally required. Where NYC Local Law 144 applies, the employer or employment agency must ensure that a qualifying independent bias audit was completed within the year before use; a vendor’s internal self-assessment is not itself that audit. If the law applies, covered NYC-resident candidates must receive the required notice. Candidate residence alone does not establish coverage. Illinois HB 3773 (effective January 2026) requires notice and bars protected-class proxies like ZIP code; a four-year retention period appeared in the Illinois Department of Human Rights' proposed notice rules rather than in the statute itself. California's FEHA automated-decision-system regulations (effective October 2025) make the scope and recency of anti-bias testing relevant evidence in discrimination claims and require four-year retention. A properly scoped bias audit can produce adverse-impact data relevant to discrimination-risk review. Its existence does not establish that a tool is nondiscriminatory or provide a defense or safe harbor under Title VII or other law. The dossier treats a current independent bias audit as a load-bearing evidence control. Federal enforcement priorities on disparate impact have moved since 2025, and state-law and private claims are a separate question. Confirm what applies to your jurisdiction and your tools with qualified employment counsel.

Yes — and that's exactly why the dossier isn't pinned to one statute. Colorado's original SB 205 was repealed and replaced by SB 26-189 before it ever took effect; the replacement takes effect January 1, 2027 and uses a disclosure-and-human-review model rather than mandating a bias audit by name. The dossier doesn't assume a Colorado audit mandate. It grades against a composite US readiness baseline rather than one statute. These controls combine selected obligations and governance practices drawn from multiple US jurisdictions. Not every control is legally required for every tool, employer, location, or employment decision. Confirm scope and applicable requirements before treating a missing control as legally required.

No. It is deterministic and offline. You enter your own marks on what evidence you actually hold, and it computes the verdict — it never connects to a tool, runs an audit, or scores anyone. The same logic runs in the workbook, the Python engine, and the on-page demo, so all three agree to the number. It is a readiness aid, not a bias audit, certification, opinion of counsel, or safe harbor.

No. This is a full-regulated domain and obligations vary by jurisdiction and change often. This tool organizes your evidence and flags gaps; it does not certify compliance, create a safe harbor, or substitute for counsel. Confirm your specific obligations — and anything the verdict surfaces — with a qualified employment attorney before you rely on it.