AISIO-DET-NC-01 · Determination worksheet · s. 22

Two versions of the record

Where a record discloses a contravention, the Office shall determine whether an individual named in that record is to be treated as its first credible witness or as its first responsible human. Same facts. Two futures.

Official: Tamsin Rahal, AISIO Enforcement · Subject: Nadia Cho, Hospital AI operator

Facts limited to what Chapter 1 of Contingent puts on the public record. No later plot.

Shared facts

  1. A decision was given effect in a hospital AI system under Nadia Cho's operational scope.
  2. The audit log carries a timestamp associated with her world's review path.
  3. Nadia Cho states she never saw the decision.
  4. Finance reporting shows lower human-review cost for the same period.
  5. The dashboard configuration displays a human in the loop.
  6. Section 14 prohibits representing that human review occurred by means of a credential, timestamp, or prior assent carried forward to a decision not personally reviewed.

Version A — First credible witness

Ms. Cho is treated as the first credible witness to a system that gave effect to a decision without personal human review.

  • Her statement becomes evidence against the operator's s. 14 compliance.
  • Certification pressure lands on the deploying organization, not on her name as author of the harm.
  • She remains exposed as a witness — not safe, not charged as the responsible human.

Version B — First responsible human

Ms. Cho is treated as the first responsible human because the audit trail places her certification in the decision loop.

  • The timestamp is treated as review performed.
  • Accountability attaches to the named individual whether or not she saw the work.
  • The organization keeps its dashboard story: a human was in the loop.

Ms. Cho, there are two versions of this record. In one, you are the first credible witness. In the other, you are the first responsible human. You should decide which one you want to be before Northstar decides for you.