Plain Language
Before deploying, licensing, or offering a covered algorithm for any consequential action — including material changes to previously-deployed algorithms — both developers and deployers must conduct a preliminary evaluation of whether harm is plausible. If no harm is plausible, they must record and submit that finding to the Division. If harm is plausible, they must engage a qualified independent auditor (who cannot have any employment, financial, or development relationship with the developer or deployer) to conduct a comprehensive pre-deployment evaluation. The developer's evaluation covers design methodology, training and testing data, performance metrics, demographic representation, stakeholder consultation, and harm potential. The deployer's evaluation (§ 103(4), mapped separately) covers deployment context, necessity, proportionality, and deployment-specific harm potential. For material changes to existing algorithms, the evaluation scope may be limited to the changes.
Statutory Text
1. Prior to deploying, licensing, or offering a covered algorithm (including deploying a material change to a previously-deployed covered algorithm or a material change made prior to deployment) for a consequential action, a developer or deployer shall conduct a pre-deployment evaluation in accordance with this section. 2. (a) The developer shall conduct a preliminary evaluation of the plausibility that any expected use of the covered algorithm may result in a harm. (b) The deployer shall conduct a preliminary evaluation of the plausibility that any intended use of the covered algorithm may result in a harm. (c) Based on the results of the preliminary evaluation, the developer or deployer shall: (i) in the event that a harm is not plausible, record a finding of no plausible harm, including a description of the developer's expected use or the deployer's intended use of the covered algorithm, how the preliminary evaluation was conducted, and an explanation for the finding, and submit such record to the division; and (ii) in the event that a harm is plausible, conduct a full pre-deployment evaluation as described in subdivision three or subdivision four of this section, as applicable. (d) When conducting a preliminary evaluation of a material change to, or new use of, a previously-deployed covered algorithm, the developer or deployer may limit the scope of the evaluation to whether use of the covered algorithm may result in a harm as a result of the material change or new use. 3. (a) If a developer determines a harm is plausible during the preliminary evaluation described in subdivision two of this section, the developer shall engage an independent auditor to conduct a pre-deployment evaluation. The evaluation required by this subdivision shall include a detailed review and description, sufficient for an individual having ordinary skill in the art to understand the functioning, risks, uses, benefits, limitations, and other pertinent attributes of the covered algorithm, including: (i) the covered algorithm's design and methodology, including the inputs the covered algorithm is designed to use to produce an output and the outputs the covered algorithm is designed to produce; (ii) how the covered algorithm was created, trained, and tested, including: (A) any metric used to test the performance of the covered algorithm; (B) defined benchmarks and goals that correspond to such metrics, including whether there was sufficient representation of demographic groups that are reasonably likely to use or be affected by the covered algorithm in the data used to create or train the algorithm, and whether there was reasonable testing, if any, across such demographic groups; (C) the outputs the covered algorithm actually produces in testing; (D) a description of any consultation with relevant stakeholders, including any communities that will be impacted by the covered algorithm, regarding the development of the covered algorithm, or a disclosure that no such consultation occurred; (E) a description of which protected characteristics, if any, were used for testing and evaluation, and how and why such characteristics were used, including: (1) whether the testing occurred in comparable contextual conditions to the conditions in which the covered algorithm is expected to be used; and (2) if protected characteristics were not available to conduct such testing, a description of alternative methods the developer used to conduct the required assessment; (F) any other computational algorithm incorporated into the development of the covered algorithm, regardless of whether such precursor computational algorithm involves a consequential action; (G) a description of the data and information used to develop, test, maintain, or update the covered algorithm, including: (1) each type of personal data used, each source from which the personal data was collected, and how each type of personal data was inferred and processed; (2) the legal authorization for collecting and processing the personal data; and (3) an explanation of how the data (including personal data) used is representative, proportional, and appropriate to the development and intended uses of the covered algorithm; and (H) a description of the training process for the covered algorithm which includes the training, validation, and test data utilized to confirm the intended outputs; (iii) the potential for the covered algorithm to produce a harm or to have a disparate impact in the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or other activities or opportunities, and a description of such potential harm or disparate impact; (iv) alternative practices and recommendations to prevent or mitigate harm and recommendations for how the developer could monitor for harm after offering, licensing, or deploying the covered algorithm; and (v) any other information the division deems pertinent to prevent the covered algorithm from causing harm or having a disparate impact in the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or other activities or opportunities, as prescribed by rules promulgated by the division. (b) The independent auditor shall submit to the developer a report on the evaluation conducted under this subdivision, including the findings and recommendations of such independent auditor.