You Decide AP-2.1

I Want the Final Say

When it really matters, a human should always have the last word.

When AI influences credit, insurance, jobs, or access to services, a score without human final authority is not enough. AP-2.1 draws the line: AI recommends, humans decide. ¹ ²

What This Means

This policy is simple: in high-impact decisions, humans decide last. AI may rank, recommend, and flag risk, but it must not become the final authority over jobs, credit, health, education, or public services.

A Real-World Scenario

A job applicant is auto-rejected because a career gap is scored as a risk signal. In many systems today, that automated rejection stands even when the gap was family caregiving. With AP-2.1, a human reviewer must examine context before any final decision. Without it, an incorrect model judgment becomes a practical dead end.

Why It Matters to You

People need a real path to correction in consequential decisions. If the final layer is an opaque model, errors scale while appeals lose force. AP-2.1 protects both fairness and practical recoverability when systems get it wrong. ¹ ³

If We Do Nothing...

If we do nothing, automatic finality will normalize across daily life. With agentic and later AGI-like systems, humans risk becoming nominal sign-off points while real authority moves to automation. AP-2.1 prevents that authority drift. ¹ ³

For the technically inclined

AP-2.1: Human Final Decision

Humans retain final authority over consequential decisions. AI systems should provide recommendations, not autonomous determinations, in high-stakes domains.

What You Can Do

For important AI decisions, always ask: who is the accountable human, and where is the effective appeal path? If that answer is unclear, governance is weak.

See All 16 Policies Add It to Your Site