Overview

After a Covered ADMT produces an adverse outcome, Colorado's signed act creates a consumer path from advance notice to a disclosure within thirty days, system and input information, factual correction, and reconsideration. Proposed 4 CCR 904-6 details specific reasons, accessible channels, proportionate authentication, and request timing, while preserving trade-secret and privacy boundaries and distinguishing facts from scores or predictions.

Learning outcomes

Advance notice and post-outcome disclosure answer different questions: one signals possible automation, the other explains the particular adverse decision.
A useful explanation names the system's role, specific principal factors, relevant inputs or sources, and any human involvement.
Correction addresses inaccurate personal data, while reconsideration can revisit the decision without guaranteeing a different result.

Keywords

ColoradoADMTDisclosureCorrectionReconsiderationTransparency

After the Adverse Outcome: Explanation as a Consumer Path

When a Covered ADMT contributes to an adverse outcome, Colorado's transparency duty is designed to be a path rather than a label. The question here is whether an affected consumer can move from advance notice to a specific explanation, relevant system and input information, correction, and reconsideration without facing unnecessary barriers. The signed act supplies the core rights and timing; the Department of Law's rulemaking document adds the details that determine whether those rights can work in practice.

Transparency has two distinct moments

The first moment comes before the decision. Under SB26-189, a deployer must give clear and conspicuous notice before using a Covered ADMT to materially influence a consequential decision affecting a consumer. The deployer may satisfy that duty through a prominent public notice that is reasonably accessible at points of consumer interaction, including a link or posting close to the interaction or transaction where the decision may occur.

Advance notice answers a limited question: will this kind of system be used in a decision about me? It does not yet explain what happened in a particular case. That difference matters. A general notice on a website may tell an applicant that automated tools can be used in housing decisions, but it cannot tell that applicant which information affected a deposit or whether the output was decisive.

The second moment follows an adverse outcome. The statute requires a deployer that used a Covered ADMT to materially influence a consequential decision resulting in an Adverse Outcome to provide a disclosure within thirty days after making the decision. The disclosure must describe the consequential decision and the role the Covered ADMT played, provide a simple process for requesting additional information about the system and its inputs, and explain the consumer rights and how to exercise them.

The rulemaking document turns those three statutory components into a more concrete communication. It says the disclosure should identify what decision was made, the specific purpose for which the system was used, the role of the system, any human reviewers, and other automated systems. It should state the effective date of the adverse outcome when applicable and explain the principal reasons with specificity. It should also meet the general communication requirements: plain, straightforward language; accessibility for people with disabilities; appropriate language access; a readily accessible interface; readability across devices; and accuracy that is not unfair, deceptive, false, or misleading.

The two moments serve different kinds of understanding. Advance notice allows a person to know that automation may enter the process. Post-outcome disclosure allows the person to understand the decision that actually affected them. Treating the first as a substitute for the second would leave the consumer with awareness but no case-specific explanation.

A specific reason must connect the outcome to evidence

A useful explanation does not merely repeat that the organization has standards. The rulemaking document says that a statement such as “the outcome was based on our internal policies” is too broad. A statement identifying a credit score and length of employment, or a particular health-condition category where relevant, is more specific because it points to factors that can be examined.

The same principle applies when the system relies on an inference.

Published by DeepMox

FAQ

How quickly must Colorado provide an ADMT adverse-outcome disclosure?

The statute requires a deployer to provide the disclosure within thirty days after making the adverse decision.

What is the difference between an ADMT correction request and reconsideration?

A correction request challenges factually inaccurate personal data, while reconsideration asks whether the decision should be performed again or reviewed using corrected or additional evidence.

What makes a Colorado AI explanation specific?

Under the proposed rules, a specific explanation identifies the decision, the system's role, any human reviewers, and the principal score, inference, automatic factor, or missing information that materially affected the outcome.

Previous8 minColorado ADMT Housing Deposit

Next9 minColorado Meaningful Human Review

Colorado ADMT Consumer Remedies

After the Adverse Outcome: Explanation as a Consumer Path

Transparency has two distinct moments

A specific reason must connect the outcome to evidence

FAQ