AI GRCAPractice Lab
Step 5 of 5Evidence
05 · Practitioner output · Recruitment and HR

Issue the privacy recommendation

Demo mode — sign in to save your work

Your recommendation should say whether the system is defensible for employment use and what must change before broader rollout.

PRACTICE MODELoading

Restoring your saved mode and lab work…

RECRUITMENT AND HR WORKING CONTEXT

Write the HR decision record

The system supports decisions about workers or candidates. Equality, job relevance, transparency and genuinely meaningful human involvement are central.

Evidence bar
  • Equality review
  • Decision memo
  • Monitoring and redress plan
REVIEW CHECKPOINTS

Privacy Risk Assessment

Privacy Risk Assessment

Complete the fields against the recruitment and hr operating context. Your work saves automatically in this browser.

Write at least 20 characters of your own answer to unlock the review guide.

Write at least 20 characters of your own answer to unlock the review guide.

Write at least 20 characters of your own answer to unlock the review guide.

Loading saved answers…

ASSURANCE WORKPAPER

Test whether the controls actually operate

Move beyond policy design: define a population, select a defensible sample, test evidence, document exceptions and write the conclusion an audit committee would need.

01Define

Objective, population and period.

02Sample

Risk-based and representative items.

03Test

Inspect, observe and reperform.

04Conclude

Rate findings and communicate.

STRUCTURED ARTEFACT

Risk → control → evidence traceability

Build an auditable decision trail. A risk without a control—or a control without evidence—remains visible as a gap.

No traceability rows yet. Add the first priority risk and connect it to a control, test and evidence.

SCENARIO INJECT

The situation has changed

Choose an event and update the governance response as if the system were already operating.

NEW EVENT

Unannounced model change

The supplier upgrades the underlying model and cannot confirm whether prior validation remains representative.

The business wants to keep the original approval because users have not complained.

Write at least 40 characters to unlock the response criteria.

PRACTITIONER MATURITYLevel 1 · Initial

Work has started, but material evidence and ownership are missing.

Why this level?
  • Workflow is 0% complete.
  • Worksheet answer coverage is 0%.
  • No complete risk-control-evidence row is ready for review.
  • Rubric ratings are not yet consistently strong or competent.
READINESS GATENot ready
Workflow
0%
Answers
0%
Traceability
0 rows
Why this gate?
  • Workflow completion is 0%.
  • Answer coverage is 0%.
  • Add at least one traceability row marked ready for review.
TRAINER FEEDBACK

What to strengthen next

  • Name the affected people and explain the pathway from system behaviour to impact.
  • Assign an accountable human role; responsibility cannot sit with the AI system.
  • Define the evidence and acceptance criteria needed to support the conclusion.
  • Add post-deployment monitoring, escalation thresholds and a reassessment trigger.
SELF-ASSESS BEFORE EXPORT

Practitioner quality rubric

Rate the work honestly. “Needs revision” is a useful result when it identifies what to strengthen before review.

Context and scope

Strong: States the system, decision, actors, people affected, boundaries and material assumptions.

Improve: Avoid generic statements or conclusions that depend on unstated facts.

Risk reasoning

Strong: Links a credible cause and event to a specific impact, then assesses likelihood, severity and uncertainty.

Improve: Do not list harms without explaining how they could arise in this scenario.

Proportionate controls

Strong: Selects preventive, detective and corrective controls that address the identified risks and assigns owners.

Improve: Avoid control lists with no connection to a risk, trigger or responsible role.

Evidence and decision

Strong: Defines testable evidence, acceptance criteria, residual risk and a clear, conditional recommendation.

Improve: A confident conclusion is not defensible when evidence, thresholds or escalation routes are missing.

EVIDENCE-QUALITY GATES
Practitioner evidence pack

PrivacyAI

Northstar People Operations · Recruitment and HR overlay · UK GDPR and DPIA simulation

Prepared by
Learner name not added
Course coverage
Week 19
Training simulation only · Fictional scenario and data

Executive assignment

Northstar People Operations plans an AI assistant that summarises applications and recommends candidates for interview. It combines a hosted language model with a ranking model; trained recruiters remain responsible for every shortlist decision.

In simple terms: The organisation wants AI to read job applications, summarise experience and suggest who should be interviewed. Recruiters decide, but the ranking may still disadvantage suitable candidates.

Assignment: Complete DPIA screening and review safeguards for automated decision-making under the UK GDPR and DUAA framework.

Sector overlay: Recruitment and HR

Decision pressure: The steering committee meets in 10 working days. The launch slot will be lost if the decision is deferred beyond this meeting.

Ownership gap: Product, Risk and Operations each believe another function owns final residual-risk acceptance. The governance charter is silent.

Known facts

  • The assistant processes CVs and application responses
  • A hosted language model creates candidate summaries
  • A ranking model scores candidates against job criteria
  • Recruiters can change the recommendation and must record adverse decisions
  • Job-relevance and selection-rate testing by relevant group are incomplete

Privacy Processing Map

Purpose and necessity
Not completed
Personal data and data flow
Not completed
FairBank role
Not completed
Proposed lawful basis
Not completed
Special category and criminal offence data
Not completed

DPIA & ADM Review

DPIA required?
Not completed
DPIA screening rationale
Not completed
Decision pattern
Not completed
Priority privacy risks
Not completed
Meaningful human involvement test
Not completed

Privacy Safeguards Plan

Automated-decision safeguards
Not completed
Plain-language explanation
Not completed
Minimisation and retention
Not completed
Rights, security and supplier controls
Not completed

Privacy Risk Assessment

Privacy recommendation
Not completed
Privacy assessment summary
Not completed
Required actions
Not completed
Residual privacy risk
Not completed
Accountable owner / DPO route
Not completed

Assurance testing workpaper

Assurance objective
Not completed
Population and period
Not completed
Sampling approach
Not completed
Test procedure
Not completed
Exceptions and root cause
Not completed
Finding and severity
Not completed
Management action
Not completed
Board / audit summary
Not completed

Quality review and sign-off

Reviewer: Data protection officer

Decision challenge: Are lawfulness, necessity, transparency and automated-decision safeguards demonstrated in practice?

Context and scope
Not rated
Risk reasoning
Not rated
Proportionate controls
Not rated
Evidence and decision
Not rated

Reviewer sign-off: ____________________   Date: __________   Version: 1.0

Prepared as a learning artefact. Validate legal and regulatory conclusions against current authoritative sources before real-world use.
TRAINER REVIEW

Sign in to submit this evidence

Demo work stays in this browser. A registered account can submit a fixed version to a cohort trainer.

Sign in or create account
Back Finish lab