Robotiqa Decision Custody Check
A ten-question self-assessment for CIOs and architecture leads in public-sector and regulated organisations.
AI and automation now make or shape decisions about people, payments and records. Someone in your organisation must be able to say who owns each of those decisions, show the record, and explain the result. This check takes five minutes. Answer honestly. Your answers never leave your browser.
Answer every question to see your result
How to answer
Answer each question Yes, Partly or No.
- Yes — true for all the automated decisions you know about, and tested.
- Partly — true for some decisions but not all, or exists on paper but has not been tested.
- No — not in place, or you do not know.
Who owns the decision
What is recorded
Who can explain it
Your result
Custody held
Custody partial
Custody unclaimed
0 out of 20
One of your answers points to a gap that a regulator or court would find first. Read the notes on that question.
- Question 2. For each of those decisions, is one named person accountable — not a team, a committee, a vendor or “the system”? The name should be current and written down where an auditor could find it.
- Question 7. Could you reproduce a decision made twelve months ago — same inputs, same logic, same result — if a court or auditor asked? This needs the old rule or model version, not just the old data.
- Question 10. When an automated decision turns out to be wrong, is there a defined path to stop the automation, fix the error and tell the people affected? “We would work it out at the time” is a No.
Your organisation can say who owns each automated decision, show the record, and explain the result. That puts you ahead of most public-sector and regulated bodies. The risk now is drift. New tools arrive, vendors update models, and staff change roles. Custody erodes quietly unless someone checks it on a schedule. Re-run this check at least twice a year and after any major system change. The Decision Custody paper describes how to keep custody intact as systems and suppliers change.
You have the parts of decision custody but not the whole. Some decisions have owners, some have records, and some can be explained. The gaps are usually the same: vendor changes arrive unannounced, old decisions cannot be reproduced, and no one has signed off on decisions that run with no human review. Close those three first. Then link every automated decision to one accountable name. The Decision Custody paper shows how to make this a standing practice, not a one-off cleanup.
Decisions are being made in your organisation that no named person owns, records or can explain. That is not a technology gap. It is an accountability gap, and it is the one regulators, auditors and courts look for first. Start small. Pick the three automated decisions that touch the most people, name an owner for each, and make sure every decision can be reproduced. The Decision Custody paper sets out the model. Read it before your next audit, not after.
Score by area
- Who owns the decision
- 0 of 8
- What is recorded
- 0 of 6
- Who can explain it
- 0 of 6
Book a 45-minute Decision Custody review with Robotiqa, or start with the paper.