Tool Gate · How it works
How the Automated-Decision Transparency & Disclosure Scorecard gate works
How the Automated-Decision Transparency & Disclosure Scorecard scores a decision system's disclosures across weighted controls — then a disclosure gate forces UNDISCLOSED when the subject isn't told, so a 74 with the person never told still reads undisclosed.
How the gate works
This tool grades each automated decision system about a person on six transparency and recourse practices drawn from several automated-decision regimes rather than from any one statute — so a control may read low where nothing in your jurisdiction requires it. Each control is marked from your own evidence and weighted into a 0–100 score — and then the score is run past a gate that can only make the verdict worse.
The 6 weighted controls
| Signal | Weight |
|---|---|
| Use of automation disclosed to the person | 20 |
| Meaningful-logic & adverse-reason explanation | 20 |
| Human review / appeal with authority to overturn | 18 |
| Opt-out and data-correction paths offered | 16 |
| Scope & “significant decision” mapping | 14 |
| Notice retention & decision recordkeeping | 12 |
| Total | 100 |
The verdict bands
One control is not tradeable in this scoring. The gate forces UNDISCLOSED if you marked that the person was never told an automated system made the decision, regardless of the score. The gate worsens only, and never promotes a verdict. A system marked with no human appeal AND no opt-out is flagged as a recourse gap; the flag identifies a gap in recourse and does not change the verdict. A human-review path and an opt-out are not universally interchangeable. Confirm which recourse rights and conditions apply before relying on either one. Which duties apply to you is a question for counsel; this gate describes how this aid weights your own marks.
In the worked sample it scores 74 out of 100 and still reads UNDISCLOSED — This insurance premium-tier model has its explanation, human appeal, opt-out, and scoping in place, with records kept in part — a 74 that on points alone reads GAPS. But the person is never told an automated system set their tier. The disclosure gate fires, so it reads UNDISCLOSED, not GAPS. A system with no appeal and no opt-out would instead carry the recourse flag, which does not change the verdict. Priority control on this sample: Use of automation disclosed to the person — tell the person, in plain language, that an automated system is used. It is the gate control at zero, and clearing it releases the gate back to the band.
Common questions
Can something score well on the Automated-Decision Transparency & Disclosure Scorecard and still fail?
Yes. The weighted score is run past a worsen-only gate — the Disclosure gate — that can only make the verdict worse. In the worked sample it scores 74 out of 100 and still reads UNDISCLOSED, because this insurance premium-tier model has its explanation, human appeal, opt-out, and scoping in place, with records kept in part — a 74 that on points alone reads GAPS. But the person is never told an automated system set their tier. The disclosure gate fires, so it reads UNDISCLOSED, not GAPS. A system with no appeal and no opt-out would instead carry the recourse flag, which does not change the verdict.
What is a worsen-only gate?
A rule that can only lower a verdict, never raise it. One gate-triggering gap overrides an otherwise-good score, because a single gate-triggering gap shouldn't hide behind a high average. Where something is short, the priority control row names it — here, "Use of automation disclosed to the person — tell the person, in plain language, that an automated system is used. It is the gate control at zero, and clearing it releases the gate back to the band.".
Not legal advice. A readiness aid that grades your transparency process from your own marks — not a certification, an opinion of counsel, or a safe harbor, and not a ruling on whether any law applies to any decision. Date-agnostic and people-blind, it encodes no statute's deadline, grades a decision system rather than any person, files nothing, and renders no compliance ruling. Automated-decision duties (the CCPA ADMT rules, Colorado SB 26-189, GDPR Article 22, ECOA/FCRA adverse-action) vary by jurisdiction and change often — confirm which apply to you and every deadline with qualified counsel. This link encodes the marks you entered; it is your working note, not an assessment by RedHub.
Embed this diagram
Free to share and embed with attribution (CC BY 4.0) — keep the link to redhub.ai.
Interactive — renders the live diagram
<iframe src="https://redhub.ai/visuals/tool/automated-decision-transparency-disclosure-scorecard.html" title="How the Automated-Decision Transparency & Disclosure Scorecard gate works — RedHub AI" width="760" height="2092" loading="lazy" style="border:0;width:100%;max-width:760px"></iframe>
<p style="font:14px/1.5 system-ui,sans-serif"><a href="https://redhub.ai/visuals/tool/automated-decision-transparency-disclosure-scorecard">How the Automated-Decision Transparency & Disclosure Scorecard gate works</a> — by <a href="https://redhub.ai">RedHub AI</a>, the AI that tells you when to doubt it.</p>Image + link — a static picture for any blog
<a href="https://redhub.ai/visuals/tool/automated-decision-transparency-disclosure-scorecard"><img src="https://redhub.ai/visuals/tool/automated-decision-transparency-disclosure-scorecard-share.png" alt="Diagram of the Automated-Decision Transparency & Disclosure Scorecard: disclosure controls scored to 0-100 and a disclosure gate forcing UNDISCLOSED." width="760" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;border-radius:16px"></a>
<p style="font:14px/1.5 system-ui,sans-serif"><a href="https://redhub.ai">RedHub AI</a> — the AI that tells you when to doubt it.</p>
This is how Automated-Decision Transparency & Disclosure Scorecard works. More diagrams in the Visual Field Guide.