Ethical Review Process
Design structured, efficient ethical review workflows that evaluate AI projects for potential risks and ethical concerns while maintaining development velocity.
Review Process Steps
Risk-Based Intake Triage
Use a standardized intake questionnaire to classify AI projects by risk level. Low-risk projects proceed with self-certification. Medium-risk projects get expedited review. High-risk projects receive full committee review.
Ethics Impact Assessment
Project teams complete a detailed ethics impact assessment covering data usage, affected populations, potential harms, mitigation strategies, and human oversight mechanisms.
Committee Review
The committee evaluates the assessment, asks clarifying questions, and deliberates using established ethical frameworks. Members bring their diverse expertise to identify blind spots.
Decision and Conditions
The committee issues one of four outcomes: approved, approved with conditions, returned for revision, or rejected. Most reviews result in approval with specific conditions or mitigations.
Post-Deployment Monitoring
Approved projects include monitoring requirements. The committee reviews post-deployment data on bias metrics, user complaints, and outcome fairness at defined intervals.
Assessment Criteria
| Criteria | Key Questions | Evidence Required |
|---|---|---|
| Fairness | Does the system treat all groups equitably? | Bias testing results, demographic analysis |
| Transparency | Can affected people understand how decisions are made? | Explainability documentation, user disclosures |
| Privacy | Is personal data minimized and protected? | Data inventory, privacy impact assessment |
| Safety | What are the failure modes and safeguards? | Testing results, fallback procedures, human oversight |
| Accountability | Who is responsible for outcomes? | RACI matrix, escalation procedures |
Making Reviews Effective
Standardized Templates
Provide clear, structured templates for ethics impact assessments. Templates guide project teams to consider the right questions and provide the right evidence.
Pre-Review Consultation
Offer informal consultations before formal review. Teams can address potential issues early, making the formal review faster and more likely to succeed.
Decision Documentation
Document every review decision with rationale, conditions, and follow-up requirements. This creates precedent that guides future reviews and ensures consistency.
Appeals Process
Provide a formal appeals mechanism for teams that disagree with committee decisions. Fair processes build trust even when decisions are unfavorable.