assess-automated-decision-transparency-l0cka

Assess Automated Decision Transparency

Separate current law, enacted future law and transition work. Read references/automated-decision-method.md before starting.

Workflow

1. Inventory each decision, affected people, rights or interests, consequence, data categories, program role, human role, entity, jurisdiction and decision date. Distinguish a solely automated decision from a program doing something substantially and directly related to making a decision.
2. Invoke $check-commonwealth-legislation for the Privacy Act at the current and decision dates and $trace-commonwealth-legislative-change through 10 December 2026 where relevant. Invoke $route-australian-privacy-jurisdiction for State or Territory overlays.
3. Apply the future-law ledger in the reference even if no future compilation yet displays APP 1.7–1.9. For decisions after commencement, do not exclude a system merely because its arrangement, data use or acquisition occurred earlier.
4. Determine the privacy-policy information needed for in-scope program use: kinds of personal information, solely automated decisions and decisions involving relevant program-performed steps. Verify exact current text before stating an obligation.
5. Treat the Children’s Online Privacy Code as developing unless the current official register confirms registration and application. The OAIC must register it by 10 December 2026; verify whether it has been registered. Keep guidance, discrimination, administrative and employment issues in separate rows.

Result contract

Lead with one status:

• CURRENT REQUIREMENTS MAPPED — FUTURE CHANGE NOT WITHIN HORIZON
• CURRENT TEXT VERIFIED — KNOWN FUTURE CHANGE MAPPED
• AUTOMATED-DECISION LAW CHECK REQUIRED — DO NOT RELY

Then provide:

Decision | Date | Entity and jurisdiction | Program role | Personal information |
Potential significant effect | Current law | Future law | Transition action |
Privacy-policy disclosure | Evidence gap | Owner and due date