https://taxonomy.eticas.ai/risk/right-to-explanation-contestation
Maturity: established
The risk that affected individuals are not informed about decisions taken with AI assistance, do not receive a meaningful explanation of those decisions, or have no effective channel to challenge or appeal them. Includes obligations under GDPR Article 22 (rights regarding automated individual decision-making) and the EU AI Act’s Article 86 (right to explanation of individual decision-making) and Article 13 (transparency and provision of information to deployers).
Also known as: Right to explanation · Right to contest · Absence of appeal mechanisms · Ineffective communication with affected parties
System type: ADM and LLM systems
Lifecycle stages: Post Processing
Status. Each mapping shows what it rests on. Reviewed means a reviewer has confirmed the mapping against the concept’s current definition and the framework edition the taxonomy currently references; when the only confirmation is that of the person who wrote the mapping, it reads Reviewed (author’s confirmation). Outdated means it was reviewed, but the concept’s definition has changed since, so the review has to be repeated. The other statuses mean that no review has been recorded yet. Inherited mappings have been in the taxonomy since before v5.7.0 and are unchanged. They carry no record of who made them or how, and some were checked by hand when the taxonomy first published its mappings. Agent-proposed mappings come from a review carried out by AI agents, which read the framework’s text and the concept’s definition and agreed on the relation; no person has confirmed them yet. Provisional mappings were made without access to the framework’s text. Unreviewed mappings are older mappings whose target or relation was revised in v5.7.0, and any other mapping without a review. Mappings to a superseded edition of a framework are not shown: where the provision continues, they are carried to the current edition. Mappings a review has changed or rejected are not shown.
| Framework | Reference | Status |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) | Article 86 — Right to explanation of individual decision-making | Agent-proposed |
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 — AI Management System | A.8.3 External reporting | Agent-proposed |
| AIUC-1 — AI Underwriting Company Standard | Implement AI disclosure mechanisms | Inherited |
| NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI 100-1) | Accountable and Transparent | Agent-proposed |
| NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI 100-1) | MEASURE 3.3: Feedback processes for end users and impacted communities to report problems and appeal system outcomes are established and integrated into AI system evaluation metrics. | Agent-proposed |
| NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI 100-1) | MANAGE 4.1: Post-deployment AI system monitoring plans are implemented, including mechanisms for capturing and evaluating input from users and other relevant AI actors, appeal and override, decommissioning, incident response, recovery, and change management. | Agent-proposed |
| NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI 100-1) | Explainable and Interpretable | Agent-proposed |
| OECD AI Principles | 1.3(iii) Information on the data, factors, processes and logic behind a prediction, content, recommendation or decision | Agent-proposed |
| OECD AI Principles | 1.3(iv) Information that enables those adversely affected to challenge the output | Agent-proposed |
| Framework | Reference | Status |
|---|---|---|
| W3C Data Privacy Vocabulary — AI Extension | A22 Right to contest decision | Reviewed (author’s confirmation) |