<aside> 💡
This is not a traditional audit kit. Based on Design Science Research methodology (Hevner et al.), these tools assume your algorithm is an ‘artifact’ that intervenes in reality.
</aside>
<aside> 💡
⚖️ CORE STANDARD: The Variance Funnel (5% vs 8%)
You will notice two different thresholds across our tools. This is intentional:
◦ Where: In the Label Integrity Gate.
◦ Why: Bias in training data is systemic and invisible. We tolerate maximum 5% disparity (Hardt et al.) because "garbage in, garbage out."
◦ Where: In this Outcome Fairness Pack.
◦ Why: Real-world deployment allows for mitigation. We tolerate up to 8% disparity ONLY IF you have a "Human-in-the-Loop" mechanism (like Option B in the Trade-offs Matrix) to correct errors.
◦ Stop Rule: Gaps >8% are unmanageable and require a full stop.
</aside>
⚠️ Central piece that legitimizes the model before writing a single line of code.
Don’t assume the data defines it. Explicitly write what behavior counts as fraud and what doesn’t.
[Specifically define what actions, patterns, or
behaviors are considered fraud in your context]
Examples:
- Intentional false declarations
- Unauthorized use of credentials
- Behavioral patterns X, Y, Z
[Explicitly define what legitimate behaviors
may APPEAR suspicious but aren't]
Examples:
- Honest errors in forms
- Atypical behavior due to special circumstances
- Irregular but authorized use