Stage purpose
Determine whether the evidence supports broader populations, deeper actions, additional integrations, renewal, or retirement.
Use-case boundary
AI can organize goals, evidence, workload, and manager notes, but should not manufacture performance judgments or infer effort from activity exhaust. Criteria, context, employee input, and accountable management review remain necessary.
Write the specific population, users, systems, source records, proposed AI contribution, human decision, allowed action, and business consequence. State what remains outside the stage. A bounded plan prevents a successful test of one narrow task from becoming an unsupported approval for a broader operating process.
Entry condition
The limited trial has enough duration, volume, outcome data, exception evidence, user feedback, and operating-cost information for a consequential decision.
Do not waive the entry gate because a tool is already licensed or a provider offers a short implementation window. Existing access can reduce procurement time, but it does not resolve purpose, authority, evidence, ownership, privacy, security, operating fit, or measurement.
Work to complete
- retest the business case and risk assumptions
- compare affected groups and edge conditions
- review model, provider, integration, and policy changes
- confirm support and governance capacity
- exercise export, rollback, and exit
Scale and renewal review scenario
For performance and work allocation, select one decision with a known outcome and one unresolved case that represents the edge of the intended scope. Document the people, source systems, records, timing, current work, consequences, and existing controls. Run only the actions allowed at the scale and renewal review stage, and keep any generated or recommended output outside a broader production decision until the exit gate is met.
The stage owner should be able to explain why this population is representative, which groups or situations are excluded, how a user challenges an output, where a difficult exception goes, and what evidence will support the next decision. If those answers are not yet available, the correct result may be to narrow the stage rather than accelerate it.
Test design
Use representative records and preserve the denominator. Include a normal path, missing information, contradictory evidence, an unusual case, an authorized override, and a changed source, policy, model, or integration. Capture input, version, output, reviewer action, time, error, rework, exception, and downstream consequence for every test case.
Decision questions
- Which data is job-related and known to employees?
- How are context and accommodations represented?
- Can a manager see and override the basis of a recommendation?
Evidence requirements
- traceable inputs
- reviewable outputs
- human decision record
- measured outcome and failure evidence
Risk and incident controls
- proxy discrimination
- surveillance pressure
- uncontestable evaluations
Name the person who can stop the stage, the event that requires immediate pause, the fallback process, how affected records will be corrected, who must be notified, and what evidence is needed before work can resume. The plan should also address participant feedback and challenge when outputs affect people, customers, partners, investors, or regulated activity.
Measures
| Dimension | Measure | Decision use |
|---|---|---|
| Quality | Correct, incomplete, unsupported, conflicting, and materially wrong outputs | Determine whether review is practical and error is acceptable |
| Work | Cycle time, touch time, rework, exceptions, and support burden | Test the complete operating case rather than generation speed |
| Outcome | Role-specific business result against the baseline and comparison group | Separate activity from value |
| Risk | Incidents, near misses, complaints, overrides, and affected populations | Test whether controls and escalation work |
| Adoption | Correct use, avoidance, workarounds, challenge, and confidence calibration | Understand whether the operating model is usable |
Authority and policy checkpoint
EU AI Act high-risk employment guidance
Assess intended purpose, material influence, obligations, and timeline.
The authority record does not certify a product, provider, program, or organization and does not determine buyer-specific applicability.
NIST SP 1270
Avoid reducing fairness review to one metric or model component.
The authority record does not certify a product, provider, program, or organization and does not determine buyer-specific applicability.
Official sources for the stage review
EU AI Act high-risk employment guidance — European Commission. The authority record does not certify a product, provider, program, or organization and does not determine buyer-specific applicability.
NIST SP 1270 — NIST. The authority record does not certify a product, provider, program, or organization and does not determine buyer-specific applicability.
Exit condition
Approval names the expanded boundary, controls, owners, thresholds, monitoring cadence, review trigger, and evidence that could reverse the scale decision.
The exit record should state what was observed, which claims were supported or rejected, which limitations remain, whether the population was representative, who approved the decision, and what evidence could reverse it. Silence or project momentum is not approval.
The publication supports research and executive decision preparation. It does not provide legal, financial, accounting, employment, clinical, cybersecurity, investment, procurement, or implementation advice.