Case study

Consentful deployment pause playbook

A responsible AI steward negotiated the right to pause launch until refusal criteria, accountability partners, and post-launch monitoring were in place.

  • Consentful deployment
  • Leadership briefing
  • Incident preparedness
  • Documentation & trust
Reading time 3 minute read Author Naledi Brooks, Responsible deployment strategist Led emergency pause war rooms for a municipal digital ID rollout. Co-author Ezra Kim, Safety escalation engineer Built kill-switch instrumentation for a global speech platform. Published Updated

A coalition of product, policy, and community partners aligned on readiness questions that centered impacted residents, ensuring the benefits screening pilot launched with informed consent and resourcing to respond when harm emerged.

6 readiness questions covering data lineage, refusal criteria, and remediation budgets.
Three escalation paths, including a resident advisory board with veto power.
Consent language rewritten with opt-out defaults and multilingual community review.
Context

The pressure to launch overshadowed consent.

A city agency was ready to pilot an algorithmic benefits screener, but frontline advocates raised unresolved questions about data use, refusal options, and ongoing repair.

Risks surfaced

  • Residents had limited visibility into how eligibility decisions were generated.
  • Vendor contract lacked commitments for harm review or timeline for fixes.
  • Community partners were asked to absorb support calls without compensation.

Ethotechnics remit

  • Codify refusal criteria and the authority to pause launch.
  • Design cross-partner accountability rituals for post-launch monitoring.
  • Build multilingual consent journeys aligned with community norms.
Interventions

Conditions required before launch.

Consent narrative workshop

Residents, interpreters, and policy leads rewrote disclosures so every data use and appeal path was explained in plain language across five languages.

Launch pause authority

An agreement empowered the responsible AI steward and resident advisory co-chair to halt rollout until readiness questions scored green.

Harm review council

Monthly council with vendor, agency, and community members reviewed flagged cases, approved remediation budgets, and published public notes.

Consent telemetry

Instrumentation captured opt-outs, appeals, and translation gaps, feeding alerts to the council within 24 hours.

Signals

Launch moved forward with shared accountability.

Consent comprehension
92% of pilot participants reported understanding how to refuse or appeal decisions.
Escalation response time
High-severity cases received review within 48 hours through the new council process.
Community compensation
Partners received stipends and backfill support for hotline coverage, reducing burnout indicators.
Artifacts

Deliverables anchoring the pause playbook.

  • Readiness questionnaire – Scoring rubric, refusal criteria, and escalation triggers.
  • Consent script kit – Plain-language copy in five languages plus interpreter briefing notes.
  • Harm council charter – Roles, cadence, stipend structure, and publication commitments.

Explore how these templates could work for your launch: start a conversation.