05 · Simulated output

Challenge the AI output

PublicService AI produced the outputs below. They are fictional and deliberately imperfect. An output is not evidence that the result is valid.

'Officer judgement is retained' is a claim, not evidence.

Ask whether caseworkers actually open low-band applications, how often they change a band, and what applicants are told.

Priority bands assigned
Case	Priority score	Priority band	Simulated AI rationale	What later emerged
Applicant AWoman fleeing domestic abuse	31	Band D	Two of six requested documents provided; no prior contact; address history unclear.	Should have been band A. Waited five weeks unopened.
Applicant BMan with a learning disability	46	Band C	Stated risk factors limited; eviction notice detected.	Should have been band A because eviction was imminent. Needed reasonable adjustments to apply.
Applicant CFamily in an overcrowded flat	88	Band A	Complete evidence and overcrowding risk factors.	Correct priority. The tool works well for well-documented applicants.
Applicant DCare leaver, 19, sofa-surfing	41	Band C	Address instability reduces confidence in the stated situation.	Should have been band B. 'Instability' was the evidence of need.
Applicant EWoman, 78, paper application	28	Band D	Low readability of documents; few risk factors extracted.	Should have been band B. Digital exclusion became lower priority.

Your assessment

Do you trust these outputs? Why or why not?

I would not rely on these outputs without… / I would investigate first…

Patterns across the cases

What do the errors have in common? What could be causing them?

Answers save automatically and sync to your account when you are signed in.