Library
White paperMichael Clark
The Clearest High-Risk Category in the Act
Annex III point 4(a) leaves little room to argue about scope, and the Article 6(3) exemption is lost wherever a tool profiles candidates, so the question for each tool is what it evaluates. Branding, modification and repurposing can make a staffing firm the provider, and a New York City bias audit discloses adverse impact without certifying its absence. The recommended controls are a written role determination per system, measures of where review may be nominal, and the basis of each rejection captured at decision time.
Key findings
- Annex III point 4(a) names recruitment and selection directly, leaving little room to argue about what it covers.
- An Annex III system that performs profiling of natural persons is always high-risk, so the Article 6(3) exemption is lost wherever a tool evaluates candidates' personal aspects.
- A staffing firm that brands, substantially modifies or repurposes a screening tool can become its provider under Article 25(1).
In the paper
- The question is what each tool evaluates
- The agency question
- Why a bias audit is not a defence
- What transfers to the EU
- Where to start
Michael Clark
Chief Executive Officer, Standard Intelligence
Your next step