STD-02 Evidence Pack
Tiered evidence requirements for contestability, review, and remedy obligations in STD-02.
Proof-carrying compliance
Evidence bundles for contestability
STD-02 evidence packs show who reviews decisions, how fast, and how remedies land.
Tiered evidence model
Tier 0 to Tier 2 minimum
Begin with Tier 0 to prove access, then move up to resilience evidence.
- Tier 0 (minimum): Proof the contestation path exists and is reachable in-product. UI links, receipt payloads, and appeal intake records.
- Tier 1 (operational): Proof that appeals are reviewed and clocks are honored. Reviewer rosters, appeal outcomes, and clock compliance dashboards.
- Tier 2 (resilient): Proof that contestation survives scale, incident load, and exceptions. Postmortems, exception audits, and throughput stress tests.
Receipt payloads should conform to the Agent Receipt schema for audit-ready evidence packs.
-
STD-02.1.1 (§1.1) — disclose that automated decisioning occurred when automation materially affects a person.
Evidence: ui_notice, policy -
STD-02.1.2 (§1.2) — state what changed and why it matters when automation changes status, access, or resources.
Evidence: ui_notice, decision_log -
STD-02.1.3 (§1.3) — provide a review/appeal path with timelines when person receives an adverse or consequential outcome.
Evidence: appeal_policy, ui_copy -
STD-02.2.1 (§2.1) — maintain a record of tool calls and state changes when system takes an action or decision.
Evidence: action_log, audit_trail -
STD-02.2.2 (§2.2) — include reason codes and key inputs (redacted as needed) when receipt is generated for an action.
Evidence: receipt_template, policy -
STD-02.2.3 (§2.3) — identify accountable operator and contact channel when receipt is issued.
Evidence: receipt_template, contact_directory -
STD-02.3.1 (§3.1) — grant standing regardless of status or credentials when person is materially affected.
Evidence: policy, appeal_workflow -
STD-02.3.2 (§3.2) — avoid retaliation or punitive impacts when a contestation is filed.
Evidence: policy, case_log -
STD-02.3.3 (§3.3) — offer contestation in the same channel when decision is delivered via a channel.
Evidence: ui_state, journey_map -
STD-02.4.1 (§4.1) — publish timelines for acknowledgment, review, resolution when appeals are accepted.
Evidence: sla_doc, ui_copy -
STD-02.4.2 (§4.2) — provide transparent status updates and expected resolution when review concerns high-stakes domains.
Evidence: status_updates, queue_metrics -
STD-02.4.3 (§4.3) — escalate to higher-authority or trigger failsafe remedy when review deadlines are missed.
Evidence: escalation_policy, event_log -
STD-02.5.1 (§5.1) — support undo/rollback without extraordinary effort when harm is reversible.
Evidence: remedy_policy, ui_state -
STD-02.5.2 (§5.2) — provide a defined compensation pathway when harm is irreversible.
Evidence: remedy_policy, case_log -
STD-02.5.3 (§5.3) — assign authority to named humans when remedy is issued.
Evidence: org_chart, authority_matrix -
STD-02.6.1 (§6.1) — offer human review on request when automated denial or action occurs.
Evidence: review_policy, support_workflow -
STD-02.6.2 (§6.2) — avoid incentives that bias against remedies when reviewers are evaluated.
Evidence: performance_policy, incentive_plan -
STD-02.6.3 (§6.3) — retain tamper-evident records long enough for investigation when logs support review or redress.
Evidence: audit_trail, retention_policy -
STD-02.7.1 (§7.1) — operator accepts liability for harms when automation causes errors or latency.
Evidence: policy, governance_record -
STD-02.7.2 (§7.2) — operators still guarantee access and remedy when vendors manage logs or controls.
Evidence: vendor_contract, access_policy -
STD-02.7.3 (§7.3) — fund review capacity proportional to actions when automation throughput increases.
Evidence: capacity_plan, case_volume_metrics
Anti-weaponization evidence
Evidence requirements for AW-01 through AW-04
Treat anti-weaponization clauses as enforceable contestability obligations.
- AW-01: Burden remediation plan tied to contestability metrics.
- AW-02: Appeal path regression tests + public replacement notice.
- AW-03: Receipts + clock compliance for automated downgrades.
- AW-04: Assisted channel logs with escalation outcomes.
Pair this with diagnostics checks to validate AW compliance.
How teams fake this
Common compliance theater patterns
Spot and prevent adversarial compliance behaviors.
- Appeal links exist but lead to dead ends or generic inboxes.
- Review clocks are defined but not visible to impacted people.
- Manual review happens, but there is no audit trail of outcomes or reversals.
- Exception paths are used to avoid remedies without any expiry or review cadence.
What auditors ask
Audit questions to prepare for
Provide clause-linked evidence and decision logs in response.
- Show appeal outcomes for the last quarter and the median review time.
- Demonstrate how many remedies were delivered within the remedy clock.
- Provide evidence that exception classes are time-bounded and reviewed.
- Show how decision logs reference evidence packs for contested decisions.
Referenced by
Where STD-02 evidence is enforced
Cross-links keep evidence packs, examples, and bindings aligned.
Used in examples
Required by bindings
Verified by evidence packs
Search IDs: STD-02 v0.9, STD-02.2.1, STD-02.3.1, AW-01, AW-02, AW-03, AW-04, VAL-02, VAL-03.