Could you defend your AI hiring toolif a regulator asked tomorrow?
Automated employment decision tools now sit inside an enforced patchwork — NYC bias audits, Illinois notice rules, California recordkeeping. Score the evidence dossier for each tool you deploy and get one verdict — DOSSIER READY, OPEN GAPS, or NOT DEFENSIBLE — with a gate that won't let a tool pass on paperwork while the load-bearing controls are missing.
Not legal advice. This is a readiness aid that grades a deployer's evidence dossier from your own marks — not a bias audit, certification, opinion of counsel, or safe harbor. AEDT obligations vary by jurisdiction and change often; it connects to nothing and scores no candidate or employee. Confirm your specific obligations with a qualified employment attorney.
The dashboard says you're compliant. The file says otherwise.
NYC penalties run $500–$1,500 per violation per day, and enforcement ramped up after a December 2025 Comptroller audit found the city was missing non-compliant employers.
the most common fatal gap: a vendor's own “bias report” passed off as the audit. A vendor cannot audit its own tool — regulators and courts treat self-reported testing very differently.
NYC, Illinois, California, soon Connecticut — each with different notice, audit, and recordkeeping rules. A tool defensible in one place can be exposed in another.
This grades the evidence you can actually produce — calibrated to the highest-bar jurisdiction — and refuses to let a tool with a stack of paperwork but no independent audit, or no candidate notice, read as defensible.
Score a tool and watch the gate do its job.
Mark each control. The verdict updates live — same math as the workbook.
An audit by an auditor with no ties to the tool, within the last year. Vendor self-attestation does not count.
Candidates notified before the tool evaluates them, with the required content and lead time.
Where required, a current audit summary posted clear-and-conspicuous on the public site.
A real person reviews adverse outcomes; candidates can appeal or request an alternative.
Notices, audit data, and decision records retained for the required period.
Input sources known and protected-class proxies (e.g. ZIP as race) ruled out.
Scores in the DOSSIER READY band, but a gate control is at 0 — so the verdict is forced to NOT DEFENSIBLE. With no independent audit, or candidates never notified, a strong file elsewhere can't make the deployment defensible.
Close first: Independent bias audit on file
Your marks only · no benchmark · grades the dossier, not people
One command, every tool, an auditable verdict.
The zero-dependency Python engine reads your tool list and prints the same verdict the workbook and demo produce. The Resume screener below scores 76 and still reads NOT DEFENSIBLE — the only audit on file is the vendor's own.
AEDT Deployer Compliance Dossier
====================================================
Resume screener (NYC) 76/100 NOT DEFENSIBLE [GATE -> NOT DEFENSIBLE]
fix first: Independent bias audit on file (within the last year)
Video-interview analyzer 52/100 NOT DEFENSIBLE [GATE -> NOT DEFENSIBLE]
fix first: Pre-use candidate notice delivered
Promotion-scoring model 94/100 DOSSIER READY
fix first: Data-source & proxy-discrimination governance
Candidate-matching engine 50/100 OPEN GAPS
fix first: Independent bias audit on file (within the last year)
Chatbot assessment 48/100 NOT DEFENSIBLE
fix first: Audit summary published where required
Internal mobility scorer 100/100 DOSSIER READY
----------------------------------------------------
Portfolio: PULL FROM USE
3 of 6 tool(s) read NOT DEFENSIBLE.Six controls, weighted to 100 — two of them gates.
No independent audit OR no candidate notice forces NOT DEFENSIBLE regardless of score. Either alone is fatal — and the gate only worsens a verdict, never lifts one.
Rather than chase one shifting statute, the controls track the strongest obligations across NYC, Illinois, and California — the preemption-resistant posture.
Close a gate control and the gate releases — the verdict returns to whatever the score earned. The control to close first is always named.
A readiness aid, not a bias audit or a safe harbor.
- A deterministic dossier-readiness verdict from your own marks.
- A way to find the fatal gap before a regulator or candidate does.
- A portfolio rollup that names the worst tool to act on first.
- Offline — engine, workbook, and demo agree to the verdict.
- Not a bias audit, certification, opinion of counsel, or safe harbor.
- Not connected to your hiring tool — it runs no audit and reads nothing live.
- Not a scoring of any candidate or employee — it grades the deployer's file.
- Not a substitute for an employment attorney on your specific obligations.
Not legal advice. This is a readiness aid that grades a deployer's evidence dossier from your own marks — not a bias audit, certification, opinion of counsel, or safe harbor. AEDT obligations vary by jurisdiction and change often; it connects to nothing and scores no candidate or employee. Confirm your specific obligations with a qualified employment attorney.
Anyone who has to stand behind an AI hiring tool.
Run hiring well, verify the claims, defend the tool.
Run the hiring lifecycle itself — bias-checked JDs, structured screens, lawful-question flags.
ViewVerifies what a candidate claims — the verification lane beside this compliance lane.
ViewThe liability-triage pattern for any customer-facing AI surface, not just hiring.
ViewThe honest answers.
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, OPEN GAPS, or NOT DEFENSIBLE 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 NOT DEFENSIBLE no matter how strong everything else is. An independent audit is the load-bearing defense against a discrimination claim — and vendor self-attestation does not count, because a vendor cannot audit its own tool. The shipped Resume-screener sample scores 76 and still reads NOT DEFENSIBLE for exactly that reason.
It is calibrated to the highest-bar US jurisdiction rather than any single statute. NYC Local Law 144 requires an annual independent bias audit, a published summary, and pre-use candidate notice. Illinois HB 3773 (effective January 2026) requires notice, bars protected-class proxies like ZIP code, and contemplates four-year recordkeeping. California's FEHA regulations make bias testing relevant to discrimination claims and extend recordkeeping. An independent bias audit defends against federal Title VII liability regardless of which state law is in scope, so the dossier treats it as load-bearing.
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 the controls that make a deployment defensible across the patchwork, which is the durable posture as individual statutes shift.
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.
Find the fatal gap
before they do.
One purchase, lifetime access, 12 months of updates. $99, once.
Not legal advice. This is a readiness aid that grades a deployer's evidence dossier from your own marks — not a bias audit, certification, opinion of counsel, or safe harbor. AEDT obligations vary by jurisdiction and change often; it connects to nothing and scores no candidate or employee. Confirm your specific obligations with a qualified employment attorney.
Sold by RedHub AI LLC · Secured by Stripe · redhub.ai