A proposed requirement that machine-mediated appeals be materially independent of the original deciding architecture.
Because an appeal exists to challenge the original facts, inference, law, jurisdiction, purpose and consequence. The same architecture repeating itself is reconsideration, not necessarily independent review.
Model, vendor, data, reviewer, authority and procedure can each create dependency. Not every appeal needs maximum separation on every axis, but high-impact decisions require enough independence to make reversal genuinely possible.
A correct reversal must identify downstream recipients, copied records and derivative decisions; otherwise the origin decision changes while the person remains harmed.
Source links establish traceability and support. They do not imply that the source endorses Concresca’s constitutional proposals.
Requires impact assessment, transparency, quality assurance, recourse, and graduated human involvement for covered federal automated decisions.
Government of Canada — official/source page ↗Includes logging and human-oversight obligations for high-risk AI and prohibitions relevant to certain social-scoring and criminal-risk uses.
European Union — official/source page ↗NO JUDGMENT WHATSOEVER. Concresca coordinates without assigning moral worth, character, guilt, danger, trustworthiness, loyalty, purity, normality, or social standing. Questions, thoughts, identities, messages, content, and conduct are not objects of Concresca judgment.