Human in the loop
Also called meaningful human oversight
A requirement that a person makes or can meaningfully change an automated decision, rather than reviewing it after the fact or approving it as a formality.
Last reviewed
In practice
The word doing the work is "meaningful". A reviewer who sees a queue of pre-filtered candidates and approves the ranking has not exercised oversight, they have provided a signature. The EU AI Act is explicit that oversight must be capable of changing the outcome.
The practical test is whether the human can see and act on the cases the system would have excluded. If below-threshold candidates never reach a screen, no amount of human presence further down the process constitutes oversight of the exclusion.
This is also why auto-rejection is the specific practice regulators moved against first. It is the point at which a decision becomes unreviewable, because nobody ever learns it was made.
Related
Automated employment decision tool
A computational process that substantially assists or replaces discretionary decision-making in hiring or promotion, typically by scoring, ranking or filtering candidates.
Composite score
A single score combining several weighted assessment components, used to rank candidates on a common scale.
Bias audit
An assessment of whether a hiring tool produces different selection rates across protected groups, performed by a party independent of the tool’s vendor.
How CalHire handles this: Composite scoring and blind ranking