ICEQC-R-2021-01 — Ethical Governance of Artificial Intelligence in Education following the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation

The adoption date controls interpretation identifies a material issue within the temporal authority. For the adoption date controls interpretation, the affected learners or institutions are institutions reading the matrix title, and the immediate evidence concerns instrument status and evidence cutoff. In governing the adoption date controls interpretation, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on the adoption date controls interpretation, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-47] [REF-57]

The principal risk is that a later normative text is read backwards as binding or available. In governing the adoption date controls interpretation, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on the adoption date controls interpretation, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning the adoption date controls interpretation, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-47]

The recommended response is to state that the Recommendation did not exist at the cutoff. Within evidence on the adoption date controls interpretation, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning the adoption date controls interpretation, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing the adoption date controls interpretation, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-19] [REF-47] [REF-57]

Validity for the adoption date controls interpretation should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning the adoption date controls interpretation, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing the adoption date controls interpretation, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on the adoption date controls interpretation, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-09] [REF-57]

Fairness review for the adoption date controls interpretation should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing the adoption date controls interpretation, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on the adoption date controls interpretation, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For the adoption date controls interpretation, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-19] [REF-47] [REF-57]

Human oversight for the adoption date controls interpretation must be meaningful. For accountability on the adoption date controls interpretation, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For the adoption date controls interpretation, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-47] [REF-57]

Information governance for the adoption date controls interpretation should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For the adoption date controls interpretation, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing the adoption date controls interpretation, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-19] [REF-47] [REF-57]

Public accountability for the adoption date controls interpretation should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing the adoption date controls interpretation, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on the adoption date controls interpretation, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-47] [REF-57]

Official source status and weight identifies a material issue within the source hierarchy. For official source status and weight, the affected learners or institutions are authorities using consensus, draft, expert and policy documents, and the immediate evidence concerns authoring body, adoption status and legal weight. In governing official source status and weight, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on official source status and weight, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-21] [REF-57] [REF-58] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that different instruments are treated as equivalent obligations. In governing official source status and weight, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on official source status and weight, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning official source status and weight, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-21] [REF-57] [REF-58]

The recommended response is to identify status and use each source within its authority. Within evidence on official source status and weight, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning official source status and weight, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing official source status and weight, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-57] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Validity for official source status and weight should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning official source status and weight, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing official source status and weight, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on official source status and weight, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-21] [REF-60]

Fairness review for official source status and weight should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing official source status and weight, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on official source status and weight, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For official source status and weight, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-57] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Human oversight for official source status and weight must be meaningful. For accountability on official source status and weight, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For official source status and weight, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-21] [REF-57] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Information governance for official source status and weight should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For official source status and weight, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing official source status and weight, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-57] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Public accountability for official source status and weight should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing official source status and weight, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on official source status and weight, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-21] [REF-57] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Existing rights remain applicable identifies a material issue within the rights continuity. For existing rights remain applicable, the affected learners or institutions are learners, teachers and families affected by automated systems, and the immediate evidence concerns education, equality, privacy and remedy. In governing existing rights remain applicable, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on existing rights remain applicable, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-15] [REF-22]

The principal risk is that absence of a dedicated recommendation is treated as a normative vacuum. In governing existing rights remain applicable, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on existing rights remain applicable, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning existing rights remain applicable, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-15]

The recommended response is to apply established rights and public duties. Within evidence on existing rights remain applicable, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning existing rights remain applicable, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing existing rights remain applicable, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-14] [REF-15] [REF-22]

Validity for existing rights remain applicable should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning existing rights remain applicable, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing existing rights remain applicable, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on existing rights remain applicable, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-10] [REF-22]

Fairness review for existing rights remain applicable should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing existing rights remain applicable, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on existing rights remain applicable, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For existing rights remain applicable, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-14] [REF-15] [REF-22]

Human oversight for existing rights remain applicable must be meaningful. For accountability on existing rights remain applicable, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For existing rights remain applicable, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-15] [REF-22]

Information governance for existing rights remain applicable should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For existing rights remain applicable, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing existing rights remain applicable, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-14] [REF-15] [REF-22]

Public accountability for existing rights remain applicable should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing existing rights remain applicable, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on existing rights remain applicable, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-15] [REF-22]

Education purpose before technology choice identifies a material issue within the purpose limitation. For education purpose before technology choice, the affected learners or institutions are institutions considering an automated education function, and the immediate evidence concerns learner need, educational decision and public purpose. In governing education purpose before technology choice, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on education purpose before technology choice, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-57] [REF-59]

The principal risk is that novel capability determines policy without a defined education need. In governing education purpose before technology choice, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on education purpose before technology choice, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning education purpose before technology choice, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-57]

The recommended response is to state the learner-facing purpose and consider non-automated alternatives. Within evidence on education purpose before technology choice, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning education purpose before technology choice, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing education purpose before technology choice, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-24] [REF-57] [REF-59]

Validity for education purpose before technology choice should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning education purpose before technology choice, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing education purpose before technology choice, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on education purpose before technology choice, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-01] [REF-59]

Fairness review for education purpose before technology choice should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing education purpose before technology choice, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on education purpose before technology choice, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For education purpose before technology choice, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-24] [REF-57] [REF-59]

Human oversight for education purpose before technology choice must be meaningful. For accountability on education purpose before technology choice, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For education purpose before technology choice, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-57] [REF-59]

Information governance for education purpose before technology choice should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For education purpose before technology choice, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing education purpose before technology choice, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-24] [REF-57] [REF-59]

Public accountability for education purpose before technology choice should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing education purpose before technology choice, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on education purpose before technology choice, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-57] [REF-59]

Risk proportionate to consequence identifies a material issue within the risk classification. For risk proportionate to consequence, the affected learners or institutions are learners subject to recommendation, prediction or decision, and the immediate evidence concerns effect on access, teaching, assessment and progression. In governing risk proportionate to consequence, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on risk proportionate to consequence, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that every application receives the same scrutiny or high consequences are understated. In governing risk proportionate to consequence, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on risk proportionate to consequence, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning risk proportionate to consequence, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59]

The recommended response is to raise evidence and oversight with consequence. Within evidence on risk proportionate to consequence, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning risk proportionate to consequence, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing risk proportionate to consequence, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Validity for risk proportionate to consequence should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning risk proportionate to consequence, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing risk proportionate to consequence, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on risk proportionate to consequence, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-21] [REF-60]

Fairness review for risk proportionate to consequence should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing risk proportionate to consequence, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on risk proportionate to consequence, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For risk proportionate to consequence, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Human oversight for risk proportionate to consequence must be meaningful. For accountability on risk proportionate to consequence, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For risk proportionate to consequence, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Information governance for risk proportionate to consequence should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For risk proportionate to consequence, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing risk proportionate to consequence, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Public accountability for risk proportionate to consequence should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing risk proportionate to consequence, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on risk proportionate to consequence, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Provisional governance under uncertainty identifies a material issue within the interim governance. For provisional governance under uncertainty, the affected learners or institutions are institutions acting before a later normative settlement, and the immediate evidence concerns bounded permission, safeguard and review. In governing provisional governance under uncertainty, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on provisional governance under uncertainty, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-09] [REF-52] [REF-58] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that uncertainty becomes permission for unrestricted use or total inaction. In governing provisional governance under uncertainty, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on provisional governance under uncertainty, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning provisional governance under uncertainty, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-09] [REF-52] [REF-58]

The recommended response is to use reversible limited arrangements with explicit review. Within evidence on provisional governance under uncertainty, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning provisional governance under uncertainty, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing provisional governance under uncertainty, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-52] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Validity for provisional governance under uncertainty should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning provisional governance under uncertainty, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing provisional governance under uncertainty, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on provisional governance under uncertainty, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-09] [REF-60]

Fairness review for provisional governance under uncertainty should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing provisional governance under uncertainty, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on provisional governance under uncertainty, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For provisional governance under uncertainty, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-52] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Human oversight for provisional governance under uncertainty must be meaningful. For accountability on provisional governance under uncertainty, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For provisional governance under uncertainty, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-09] [REF-52] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Information governance for provisional governance under uncertainty should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For provisional governance under uncertainty, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing provisional governance under uncertainty, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-52] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Public accountability for provisional governance under uncertainty should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing provisional governance under uncertainty, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on provisional governance under uncertainty, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-09] [REF-52] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Meaningful human decision authority identifies a material issue within the human oversight. For meaningful human decision authority, the affected learners or institutions are learners affected by educational recommendations or classifications, and the immediate evidence concerns competent judgement and ability to depart from output. In governing meaningful human decision authority, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on meaningful human decision authority, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that staff merely confirm an automated result. In governing meaningful human decision authority, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on meaningful human decision authority, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning meaningful human decision authority, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59]

The recommended response is to assign a trained decision maker with real discretion. Within evidence on meaningful human decision authority, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning meaningful human decision authority, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing meaningful human decision authority, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Validity for meaningful human decision authority should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning meaningful human decision authority, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing meaningful human decision authority, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on meaningful human decision authority, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-21] [REF-60]

Fairness review for meaningful human decision authority should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing meaningful human decision authority, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on meaningful human decision authority, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For meaningful human decision authority, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Human oversight for meaningful human decision authority must be meaningful. For accountability on meaningful human decision authority, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For meaningful human decision authority, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Information governance for meaningful human decision authority should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For meaningful human decision authority, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing meaningful human decision authority, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Public accountability for meaningful human decision authority should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing meaningful human decision authority, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on meaningful human decision authority, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Teacher professional agency identifies a material issue within the teacher judgement. For teacher professional agency, the affected learners or institutions are teachers using automated instructional suggestions, and the immediate evidence concerns classroom evidence, curriculum and learner context. In governing teacher professional agency, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on teacher professional agency, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-36] [REF-57]

The principal risk is that system suggestions displace professional interpretation. In governing teacher professional agency, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on teacher professional agency, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning teacher professional agency, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-36]

The recommended response is to preserve teacher authority and document warranted use. Within evidence on teacher professional agency, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning teacher professional agency, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing teacher professional agency, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-24] [REF-36] [REF-57]

Validity for teacher professional agency should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning teacher professional agency, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing teacher professional agency, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on teacher professional agency, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-01] [REF-57]

Fairness review for teacher professional agency should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing teacher professional agency, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on teacher professional agency, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For teacher professional agency, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-24] [REF-36] [REF-57]

Human oversight for teacher professional agency must be meaningful. For accountability on teacher professional agency, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For teacher professional agency, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-36] [REF-57]

Information governance for teacher professional agency should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For teacher professional agency, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing teacher professional agency, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-24] [REF-36] [REF-57]

Public accountability for teacher professional agency should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing teacher professional agency, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on teacher professional agency, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-36] [REF-57]

Learner voice and understandable notice identifies a material issue within the learner agency. For learner voice and understandable notice, the affected learners or institutions are learners interacting with or affected by automated tools, and the immediate evidence concerns notice, participation and contestability. In governing learner voice and understandable notice, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on learner voice and understandable notice, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that people do not know a system affects their education or cannot respond. In governing learner voice and understandable notice, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on learner voice and understandable notice, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning learner voice and understandable notice, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-58]

The recommended response is to provide age-appropriate explanation and response routes. Within evidence on learner voice and understandable notice, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning learner voice and understandable notice, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing learner voice and understandable notice, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Validity for learner voice and understandable notice should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning learner voice and understandable notice, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing learner voice and understandable notice, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on learner voice and understandable notice, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-14] [REF-60]

Fairness review for learner voice and understandable notice should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing learner voice and understandable notice, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on learner voice and understandable notice, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For learner voice and understandable notice, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Human oversight for learner voice and understandable notice must be meaningful. For accountability on learner voice and understandable notice, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For learner voice and understandable notice, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Information governance for learner voice and understandable notice should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For learner voice and understandable notice, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing learner voice and understandable notice, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Public accountability for learner voice and understandable notice should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing learner voice and understandable notice, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on learner voice and understandable notice, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-60]

No delegation of public duty identifies a material issue within the institutional responsibility. For no delegation of public duty, the affected learners or institutions are schools and authorities acquiring external systems, and the immediate evidence concerns legal duty, provider role and decision ownership. In governing no delegation of public duty, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on no delegation of public duty, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-18] [REF-27] [REF-59] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that contracting transfers accountability to a supplier. In governing no delegation of public duty, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on no delegation of public duty, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning no delegation of public duty, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-18] [REF-27] [REF-59]

The recommended response is to retain public responsibility and scrutiny access by contract. Within evidence on no delegation of public duty, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning no delegation of public duty, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing no delegation of public duty, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-27] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Validity for no delegation of public duty should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning no delegation of public duty, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing no delegation of public duty, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on no delegation of public duty, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-18] [REF-60]

Fairness review for no delegation of public duty should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing no delegation of public duty, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on no delegation of public duty, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For no delegation of public duty, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-27] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Human oversight for no delegation of public duty must be meaningful. For accountability on no delegation of public duty, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For no delegation of public duty, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-18] [REF-27] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Information governance for no delegation of public duty should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For no delegation of public duty, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing no delegation of public duty, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-27] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Public accountability for no delegation of public duty should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing no delegation of public duty, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on no delegation of public duty, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-18] [REF-27] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Automation as one source, not the whole record identifies a material issue within the evidence restraint. For automation as one source, not the whole record, the affected learners or institutions are decision makers combining system output with educational evidence, and the immediate evidence concerns source, construct and limitation. In governing automation as one source, not the whole record, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on automation as one source, not the whole record, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-17] [REF-58]

The principal risk is that a score or prediction replaces direct evidence and context. In governing automation as one source, not the whole record, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on automation as one source, not the whole record, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning automation as one source, not the whole record, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-17]

The recommended response is to use complementary sources and bounded interpretation. Within evidence on automation as one source, not the whole record, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning automation as one source, not the whole record, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing automation as one source, not the whole record, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-09] [REF-17] [REF-58]

Validity for automation as one source, not the whole record should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning automation as one source, not the whole record, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing automation as one source, not the whole record, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on automation as one source, not the whole record, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-05] [REF-58]

Fairness review for automation as one source, not the whole record should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing automation as one source, not the whole record, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on automation as one source, not the whole record, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For automation as one source, not the whole record, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-09] [REF-17] [REF-58]

Human oversight for automation as one source, not the whole record must be meaningful. For accountability on automation as one source, not the whole record, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For automation as one source, not the whole record, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-17] [REF-58]

Information governance for automation as one source, not the whole record should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For automation as one source, not the whole record, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing automation as one source, not the whole record, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-09] [REF-17] [REF-58]

Public accountability for automation as one source, not the whole record should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing automation as one source, not the whole record, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on automation as one source, not the whole record, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-17] [REF-58]

Right to correction and effective remedy identifies a material issue within the decision remedy. For right to correction and effective remedy, the affected learners or institutions are learners harmed by data or decision error, and the immediate evidence concerns notice, correction, review and continuing education. In governing right to correction and effective remedy, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on right to correction and effective remedy, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-10] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that errors persist or appeal repeats the same unexamined output. In governing right to correction and effective remedy, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on right to correction and effective remedy, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning right to correction and effective remedy, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-10] [REF-20] [REF-21]

The recommended response is to provide independent human review and rapid correction. Within evidence on right to correction and effective remedy, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning right to correction and effective remedy, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing right to correction and effective remedy, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-60]

Validity for right to correction and effective remedy should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning right to correction and effective remedy, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing right to correction and effective remedy, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on right to correction and effective remedy, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-10] [REF-60]

Fairness review for right to correction and effective remedy should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing right to correction and effective remedy, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on right to correction and effective remedy, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For right to correction and effective remedy, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-60]

Human oversight for right to correction and effective remedy must be meaningful. For accountability on right to correction and effective remedy, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For right to correction and effective remedy, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-10] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-60]

Information governance for right to correction and effective remedy should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For right to correction and effective remedy, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing right to correction and effective remedy, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-60]

Public accountability for right to correction and effective remedy should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing right to correction and effective remedy, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on right to correction and effective remedy, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-10] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-60]

Purpose-limited data selection identifies a material issue within the data necessity. For purpose-limited data selection, the affected learners or institutions are institutions selecting learner and education records, and the immediate evidence concerns field, purpose and minimum need. In governing purpose-limited data selection, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on purpose-limited data selection, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-58] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that available personal data are reused without educational justification. In governing purpose-limited data selection, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on purpose-limited data selection, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning purpose-limited data selection, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-58]

The recommended response is to collect and use only necessary data. Within evidence on purpose-limited data selection, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning purpose-limited data selection, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing purpose-limited data selection, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-20] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Validity for purpose-limited data selection should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning purpose-limited data selection, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing purpose-limited data selection, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on purpose-limited data selection, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-09] [REF-60]

Fairness review for purpose-limited data selection should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing purpose-limited data selection, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on purpose-limited data selection, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For purpose-limited data selection, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-20] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Human oversight for purpose-limited data selection must be meaningful. For accountability on purpose-limited data selection, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For purpose-limited data selection, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Information governance for purpose-limited data selection should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For purpose-limited data selection, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing purpose-limited data selection, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-20] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Public accountability for purpose-limited data selection should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing purpose-limited data selection, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on purpose-limited data selection, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-58] [REF-60]

Population coverage and missing learners identifies a material issue within the data representativeness. For population coverage and missing learners, the affected learners or institutions are learners included, excluded or misrepresented in data, and the immediate evidence concerns target population, coverage and missingness. In governing population coverage and missing learners, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on population coverage and missing learners, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-59]

The principal risk is that training or validation data are assumed to represent every learner. In governing population coverage and missing learners, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on population coverage and missing learners, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning population coverage and missing learners, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-38]

The recommended response is to publish coverage and test missing groups. Within evidence on population coverage and missing learners, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning population coverage and missing learners, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing population coverage and missing learners, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-59]

Validity for population coverage and missing learners should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning population coverage and missing learners, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing population coverage and missing learners, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on population coverage and missing learners, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-07] [REF-59]

Fairness review for population coverage and missing learners should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing population coverage and missing learners, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on population coverage and missing learners, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For population coverage and missing learners, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-59]

Human oversight for population coverage and missing learners must be meaningful. For accountability on population coverage and missing learners, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For population coverage and missing learners, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-59]

Information governance for population coverage and missing learners should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For population coverage and missing learners, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing population coverage and missing learners, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-59]

Public accountability for population coverage and missing learners should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing population coverage and missing learners, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on population coverage and missing learners, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-59]

Construct validity in educational use identifies a material issue within the measurement validity. For construct validity in educational use, the affected learners or institutions are learners classified on learning or participation constructs, and the immediate evidence concerns intended construct, proxy and decision. In governing construct validity in educational use, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on construct validity in educational use, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-05] [REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-58]

The principal risk is that a behavioural trace is treated as learning, ability or motivation. In governing construct validity in educational use, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on construct validity in educational use, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning construct validity in educational use, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-05] [REF-17] [REF-29]

The recommended response is to validate the measure for the stated educational decision. Within evidence on construct validity in educational use, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning construct validity in educational use, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing construct validity in educational use, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-58]

Validity for construct validity in educational use should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning construct validity in educational use, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing construct validity in educational use, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on construct validity in educational use, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-05] [REF-58]

Fairness review for construct validity in educational use should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing construct validity in educational use, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on construct validity in educational use, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For construct validity in educational use, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-58]

Human oversight for construct validity in educational use must be meaningful. For accountability on construct validity in educational use, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For construct validity in educational use, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-05] [REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-58]

Information governance for construct validity in educational use should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For construct validity in educational use, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing construct validity in educational use, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-58]

Public accountability for construct validity in educational use should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing construct validity in educational use, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on construct validity in educational use, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-05] [REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-58]

Group fairness beyond average accuracy identifies a material issue within the distributional validity. For group fairness beyond average accuracy, the affected learners or institutions are groups differing by disability, gender, location, income or language, and the immediate evidence concerns error, coverage and consequence by group. In governing group fairness beyond average accuracy, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on group fairness beyond average accuracy, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-10] [REF-38] [REF-53] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that aggregate performance hides concentrated error and harm. In governing group fairness beyond average accuracy, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on group fairness beyond average accuracy, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning group fairness beyond average accuracy, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-10] [REF-38] [REF-53]

The recommended response is to test group levels, errors and beneficiary effects. Within evidence on group fairness beyond average accuracy, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning group fairness beyond average accuracy, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing group fairness beyond average accuracy, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-38] [REF-53] [REF-60]

Validity for group fairness beyond average accuracy should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning group fairness beyond average accuracy, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing group fairness beyond average accuracy, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on group fairness beyond average accuracy, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-10] [REF-60]

Fairness review for group fairness beyond average accuracy should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing group fairness beyond average accuracy, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on group fairness beyond average accuracy, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For group fairness beyond average accuracy, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-38] [REF-53] [REF-60]

Human oversight for group fairness beyond average accuracy must be meaningful. For accountability on group fairness beyond average accuracy, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For group fairness beyond average accuracy, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-10] [REF-38] [REF-53] [REF-60]

Information governance for group fairness beyond average accuracy should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For group fairness beyond average accuracy, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing group fairness beyond average accuracy, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-38] [REF-53] [REF-60]

Public accountability for group fairness beyond average accuracy should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing group fairness beyond average accuracy, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on group fairness beyond average accuracy, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-10] [REF-38] [REF-53] [REF-60]

Historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels identifies a material issue within the feedback risk. For historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, the affected learners or institutions are learners affected by past exclusion or lower opportunity, and the immediate evidence concerns prior decision, data pattern and later allocation. In governing historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-57] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that historical disadvantage becomes a prediction that reduces future support. In governing historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-57]

The recommended response is to avoid using past exclusion as destiny and monitor allocation effects. Within evidence on historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-04] [REF-57] [REF-60]

Validity for historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-03] [REF-60]

Fairness review for historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-04] [REF-57] [REF-60]

Human oversight for historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels must be meaningful. For accountability on historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-57] [REF-60]

Information governance for historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-04] [REF-57] [REF-60]

Public accountability for historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-57] [REF-60]

Explanation appropriate to the decision identifies a material issue within the transparency duty. For explanation appropriate to the decision, the affected learners or institutions are learners, teachers and reviewers evaluating an output, and the immediate evidence concerns material inputs, limitation and reason. In governing explanation appropriate to the decision, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on explanation appropriate to the decision, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that technical complexity becomes an excuse for no understandable reason. In governing explanation appropriate to the decision, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on explanation appropriate to the decision, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning explanation appropriate to the decision, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59]

The recommended response is to provide a decision-level explanation and evidence route. Within evidence on explanation appropriate to the decision, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning explanation appropriate to the decision, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing explanation appropriate to the decision, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Validity for explanation appropriate to the decision should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning explanation appropriate to the decision, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing explanation appropriate to the decision, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on explanation appropriate to the decision, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-21] [REF-60]

Fairness review for explanation appropriate to the decision should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing explanation appropriate to the decision, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on explanation appropriate to the decision, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For explanation appropriate to the decision, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Human oversight for explanation appropriate to the decision must be meaningful. For accountability on explanation appropriate to the decision, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For explanation appropriate to the decision, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Information governance for explanation appropriate to the decision should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For explanation appropriate to the decision, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing explanation appropriate to the decision, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Public accountability for explanation appropriate to the decision should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing explanation appropriate to the decision, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on explanation appropriate to the decision, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Admission and placement identifies a material issue within the access decision. For admission and placement, the affected learners or institutions are applicants and learners entering institutions or programmes, and the immediate evidence concerns eligibility, evidence and placement consequence. In governing admission and placement, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on admission and placement, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-10] [REF-21] [REF-47] [REF-59]

The principal risk is that opaque scoring denies or narrows education access. In governing admission and placement, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on admission and placement, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning admission and placement, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-10] [REF-21] [REF-47]

The recommended response is to require lawful criteria, human reasons and appeal. Within evidence on admission and placement, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning admission and placement, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing admission and placement, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-21] [REF-47] [REF-59]

Validity for admission and placement should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning admission and placement, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing admission and placement, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on admission and placement, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-10] [REF-59]

Fairness review for admission and placement should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing admission and placement, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on admission and placement, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For admission and placement, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-21] [REF-47] [REF-59]

Human oversight for admission and placement must be meaningful. For accountability on admission and placement, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For admission and placement, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-10] [REF-21] [REF-47] [REF-59]

Information governance for admission and placement should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For admission and placement, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing admission and placement, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-21] [REF-47] [REF-59]

Public accountability for admission and placement should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing admission and placement, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on admission and placement, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-10] [REF-21] [REF-47] [REF-59]

Assessment and grading identifies a material issue within the assessment decision. For assessment and grading, the affected learners or institutions are learners receiving marks, certification or progression decisions, and the immediate evidence concerns construct, evidence sufficiency and consequence. In governing assessment and grading, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on assessment and grading, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-09] [REF-17] [REF-38] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that automated scoring is treated as objective across languages and formats. In governing assessment and grading, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on assessment and grading, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning assessment and grading, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-09] [REF-17] [REF-38]

The recommended response is to validate by task and group with human review. Within evidence on assessment and grading, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning assessment and grading, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing assessment and grading, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-17] [REF-38] [REF-60]

Validity for assessment and grading should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning assessment and grading, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing assessment and grading, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on assessment and grading, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-09] [REF-60]

Fairness review for assessment and grading should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing assessment and grading, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on assessment and grading, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For assessment and grading, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-17] [REF-38] [REF-60]

Human oversight for assessment and grading must be meaningful. For accountability on assessment and grading, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For assessment and grading, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-09] [REF-17] [REF-38] [REF-60]

Information governance for assessment and grading should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For assessment and grading, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing assessment and grading, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-17] [REF-38] [REF-60]

Public accountability for assessment and grading should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing assessment and grading, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on assessment and grading, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-09] [REF-17] [REF-38] [REF-60]

Early warning and dropout prediction identifies a material issue within the support prediction. For early warning and dropout prediction, the affected learners or institutions are learners identified as at risk of leaving, and the immediate evidence concerns risk signal, support offer and stigma. In governing early warning and dropout prediction, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on early warning and dropout prediction, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-14] [REF-23] [REF-57] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that prediction produces surveillance or exclusion instead of help. In governing early warning and dropout prediction, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on early warning and dropout prediction, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning early warning and dropout prediction, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-14] [REF-23] [REF-57]

The recommended response is to use only for supportive outreach with non-punitive safeguards. Within evidence on early warning and dropout prediction, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning early warning and dropout prediction, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing early warning and dropout prediction, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-23] [REF-57] [REF-60]

Validity for early warning and dropout prediction should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning early warning and dropout prediction, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing early warning and dropout prediction, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on early warning and dropout prediction, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-14] [REF-60]

Fairness review for early warning and dropout prediction should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing early warning and dropout prediction, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on early warning and dropout prediction, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For early warning and dropout prediction, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-23] [REF-57] [REF-60]

Human oversight for early warning and dropout prediction must be meaningful. For accountability on early warning and dropout prediction, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For early warning and dropout prediction, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-14] [REF-23] [REF-57] [REF-60]

Information governance for early warning and dropout prediction should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For early warning and dropout prediction, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing early warning and dropout prediction, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-23] [REF-57] [REF-60]

Public accountability for early warning and dropout prediction should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing early warning and dropout prediction, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on early warning and dropout prediction, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-14] [REF-23] [REF-57] [REF-60]

Instructional recommendation identifies a material issue within the teaching support. For instructional recommendation, the affected learners or institutions are learners receiving sequenced tasks or resources, and the immediate evidence concerns curriculum fit, accessibility and teacher judgement. In governing instructional recommendation, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on instructional recommendation, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-57]

The principal risk is that recommendations narrow curriculum or repeat past performance labels. In governing instructional recommendation, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on instructional recommendation, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning instructional recommendation, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-29]

The recommended response is to retain broad curriculum and teacher adjustment. Within evidence on instructional recommendation, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning instructional recommendation, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing instructional recommendation, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-57]

Validity for instructional recommendation should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning instructional recommendation, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing instructional recommendation, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on instructional recommendation, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-01] [REF-57]

Fairness review for instructional recommendation should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing instructional recommendation, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on instructional recommendation, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For instructional recommendation, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-57]

Human oversight for instructional recommendation must be meaningful. For accountability on instructional recommendation, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For instructional recommendation, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-57]

Information governance for instructional recommendation should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For instructional recommendation, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing instructional recommendation, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-57]

Public accountability for instructional recommendation should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing instructional recommendation, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on instructional recommendation, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-57]

Accessibility and assistive use identifies a material issue within the inclusive support. For accessibility and assistive use, the affected learners or institutions are learners with disabilities using adapted communication or materials, and the immediate evidence concerns functional access, benefit and data protection. In governing accessibility and assistive use, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on accessibility and assistive use, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-53] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that assistive benefits excuse privacy or autonomy harms. In governing accessibility and assistive use, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on accessibility and assistive use, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning accessibility and assistive use, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-53]

The recommended response is to co-design accessible support with rights safeguards. Within evidence on accessibility and assistive use, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning accessibility and assistive use, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing accessibility and assistive use, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-15] [REF-53] [REF-60]

Validity for accessibility and assistive use should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning accessibility and assistive use, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing accessibility and assistive use, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on accessibility and assistive use, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-11] [REF-60]

Fairness review for accessibility and assistive use should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing accessibility and assistive use, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on accessibility and assistive use, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For accessibility and assistive use, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-15] [REF-53] [REF-60]

Human oversight for accessibility and assistive use must be meaningful. For accountability on accessibility and assistive use, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For accessibility and assistive use, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-53] [REF-60]

Information governance for accessibility and assistive use should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For accessibility and assistive use, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing accessibility and assistive use, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-15] [REF-53] [REF-60]

Public accountability for accessibility and assistive use should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing accessibility and assistive use, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on accessibility and assistive use, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-53] [REF-60]

Integrity and remote monitoring identifies a material issue within the monitoring use. For integrity and remote monitoring, the affected learners or institutions are learners assessed or studying outside institutions, and the immediate evidence concerns necessity, intrusion and alternative evidence. In governing integrity and remote monitoring, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on integrity and remote monitoring, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-58]

The principal risk is that surveillance is disproportionate to the educational purpose. In governing integrity and remote monitoring, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on integrity and remote monitoring, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning integrity and remote monitoring, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21]

The recommended response is to prefer less intrusive evidence and preserve challenge rights. Within evidence on integrity and remote monitoring, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning integrity and remote monitoring, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing integrity and remote monitoring, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-58]

Validity for integrity and remote monitoring should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning integrity and remote monitoring, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing integrity and remote monitoring, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on integrity and remote monitoring, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-14] [REF-58]

Fairness review for integrity and remote monitoring should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing integrity and remote monitoring, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on integrity and remote monitoring, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For integrity and remote monitoring, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-58]

Human oversight for integrity and remote monitoring must be meaningful. For accountability on integrity and remote monitoring, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For integrity and remote monitoring, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-58]

Information governance for integrity and remote monitoring should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For integrity and remote monitoring, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing integrity and remote monitoring, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-58]

Public accountability for integrity and remote monitoring should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing integrity and remote monitoring, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on integrity and remote monitoring, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-58]

Pre-use educational and rights assessment identifies a material issue within the prior assessment. For pre-use educational and rights assessment, the affected learners or institutions are institutions considering a new automated use, and the immediate evidence concerns purpose, necessity, alternatives, benefit and harm. In governing pre-use educational and rights assessment, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on pre-use educational and rights assessment, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-10] [REF-27] [REF-58] [REF-59]

The principal risk is that a purchase decision precedes educational and rights review. In governing pre-use educational and rights assessment, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on pre-use educational and rights assessment, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning pre-use educational and rights assessment, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-10] [REF-27] [REF-58]

The recommended response is to complete a documented assessment before use. Within evidence on pre-use educational and rights assessment, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning pre-use educational and rights assessment, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing pre-use educational and rights assessment, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-27] [REF-58] [REF-59]

Validity for pre-use educational and rights assessment should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning pre-use educational and rights assessment, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing pre-use educational and rights assessment, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on pre-use educational and rights assessment, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-10] [REF-59]

Fairness review for pre-use educational and rights assessment should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing pre-use educational and rights assessment, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on pre-use educational and rights assessment, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For pre-use educational and rights assessment, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-27] [REF-58] [REF-59]

Human oversight for pre-use educational and rights assessment must be meaningful. For accountability on pre-use educational and rights assessment, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For pre-use educational and rights assessment, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-10] [REF-27] [REF-58] [REF-59]

Information governance for pre-use educational and rights assessment should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For pre-use educational and rights assessment, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing pre-use educational and rights assessment, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-27] [REF-58] [REF-59]

Public accountability for pre-use educational and rights assessment should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing pre-use educational and rights assessment, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on pre-use educational and rights assessment, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-10] [REF-27] [REF-58] [REF-59]

Procurement evidence and contract access identifies a material issue within the contract governance. For procurement evidence and contract access, the affected learners or institutions are public authorities and external providers, and the immediate evidence concerns claims, validation, data rights and inspection. In governing procurement evidence and contract access, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on procurement evidence and contract access, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-20] [REF-27] [REF-59] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that supplier confidentiality prevents scrutiny and correction. In governing procurement evidence and contract access, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on procurement evidence and contract access, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning procurement evidence and contract access, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-20] [REF-27] [REF-59]

The recommended response is to require evidence, access, data limits and exit rights. Within evidence on procurement evidence and contract access, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning procurement evidence and contract access, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing procurement evidence and contract access, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-27] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Validity for procurement evidence and contract access should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning procurement evidence and contract access, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing procurement evidence and contract access, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on procurement evidence and contract access, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-20] [REF-60]

Fairness review for procurement evidence and contract access should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing procurement evidence and contract access, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on procurement evidence and contract access, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For procurement evidence and contract access, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-27] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Human oversight for procurement evidence and contract access must be meaningful. For accountability on procurement evidence and contract access, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For procurement evidence and contract access, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-20] [REF-27] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Information governance for procurement evidence and contract access should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For procurement evidence and contract access, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing procurement evidence and contract access, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-27] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Public accountability for procurement evidence and contract access should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing procurement evidence and contract access, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on procurement evidence and contract access, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-20] [REF-27] [REF-59] [REF-60]

Limited introduction and independent evaluation identifies a material issue within the staged use. For limited introduction and independent evaluation, the affected learners or institutions are learners exposed during early institutional adoption, and the immediate evidence concerns reach, validity, distribution and unintended effect. In governing limited introduction and independent evaluation, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on limited introduction and independent evaluation, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-09] [REF-24] [REF-52] [REF-58]

The principal risk is that wide use begins before evidence under ordinary conditions. In governing limited introduction and independent evaluation, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on limited introduction and independent evaluation, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning limited introduction and independent evaluation, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-09] [REF-24] [REF-52]

The recommended response is to start narrowly with independent review and stopping rules. Within evidence on limited introduction and independent evaluation, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning limited introduction and independent evaluation, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing limited introduction and independent evaluation, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-24] [REF-52] [REF-58]

Validity for limited introduction and independent evaluation should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning limited introduction and independent evaluation, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing limited introduction and independent evaluation, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on limited introduction and independent evaluation, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-09] [REF-58]

Fairness review for limited introduction and independent evaluation should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing limited introduction and independent evaluation, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on limited introduction and independent evaluation, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For limited introduction and independent evaluation, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-24] [REF-52] [REF-58]

Human oversight for limited introduction and independent evaluation must be meaningful. For accountability on limited introduction and independent evaluation, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For limited introduction and independent evaluation, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-09] [REF-24] [REF-52] [REF-58]

Information governance for limited introduction and independent evaluation should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For limited introduction and independent evaluation, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing limited introduction and independent evaluation, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-24] [REF-52] [REF-58]

Public accountability for limited introduction and independent evaluation should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing limited introduction and independent evaluation, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on limited introduction and independent evaluation, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-09] [REF-24] [REF-52] [REF-58]

Incident, complaint and rapid correction identifies a material issue within the operational remedy. For incident, complaint and rapid correction, the affected learners or institutions are learners and staff experiencing error or harm, and the immediate evidence concerns report, investigation, continuity and correction. In governing incident, complaint and rapid correction, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on incident, complaint and rapid correction, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-50] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that incidents remain hidden or complaints depend on the provider. In governing incident, complaint and rapid correction, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on incident, complaint and rapid correction, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning incident, complaint and rapid correction, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-50]

The recommended response is to provide independent accessible routes and continuity protection. Within evidence on incident, complaint and rapid correction, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning incident, complaint and rapid correction, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing incident, complaint and rapid correction, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-21] [REF-50] [REF-60]

Validity for incident, complaint and rapid correction should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning incident, complaint and rapid correction, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing incident, complaint and rapid correction, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on incident, complaint and rapid correction, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-14] [REF-60]

Fairness review for incident, complaint and rapid correction should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing incident, complaint and rapid correction, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on incident, complaint and rapid correction, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For incident, complaint and rapid correction, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-21] [REF-50] [REF-60]

Human oversight for incident, complaint and rapid correction must be meaningful. For accountability on incident, complaint and rapid correction, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For incident, complaint and rapid correction, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-50] [REF-60]

Information governance for incident, complaint and rapid correction should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For incident, complaint and rapid correction, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing incident, complaint and rapid correction, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-21] [REF-50] [REF-60]

Public accountability for incident, complaint and rapid correction should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing incident, complaint and rapid correction, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on incident, complaint and rapid correction, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-50] [REF-60]

Public register and bounded reporting identifies a material issue within the public accountability. For public register and bounded reporting, the affected learners or institutions are communities evaluating institutional automated uses, and the immediate evidence concerns purpose, population, authority, safeguards and evidence. In governing public register and bounded reporting, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on public register and bounded reporting, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-27] [REF-59]

The principal risk is that people cannot discover use or public claims overstate benefit. In governing public register and bounded reporting, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on public register and bounded reporting, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning public register and bounded reporting, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-27]

The recommended response is to publish a controlled register and restrained findings. Within evidence on public register and bounded reporting, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning public register and bounded reporting, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing public register and bounded reporting, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-19] [REF-27] [REF-59]

Validity for public register and bounded reporting should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning public register and bounded reporting, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing public register and bounded reporting, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on public register and bounded reporting, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-09] [REF-59]

Fairness review for public register and bounded reporting should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing public register and bounded reporting, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on public register and bounded reporting, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For public register and bounded reporting, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-19] [REF-27] [REF-59]

Human oversight for public register and bounded reporting must be meaningful. For accountability on public register and bounded reporting, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For public register and bounded reporting, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-27] [REF-59]

Information governance for public register and bounded reporting should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For public register and bounded reporting, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing public register and bounded reporting, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-19] [REF-27] [REF-59]

Public accountability for public register and bounded reporting should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing public register and bounded reporting, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on public register and bounded reporting, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-27] [REF-59]

Ending use and preserving learner rights identifies a material issue within the exit governance. For ending use and preserving learner rights, the affected learners or institutions are institutions withdrawing an ineffective or harmful system, and the immediate evidence concerns data return, record correction and service continuity. In governing ending use and preserving learner rights, governance should begin with the education entitlement, competent authority and learner-facing purpose. Within evidence on ending use and preserving learner rights, technical capability or market availability cannot establish educational necessity or lawful use.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-52] [REF-60]

The principal risk is that dependency prevents exit or residual labels continue after withdrawal. In governing ending use and preserving learner rights, this can obscure responsibility, reproduce historical inequality or create harm that is difficult for a learner to understand and challenge. Within evidence on ending use and preserving learner rights, review should separate the source data, derived output, human interpretation and final educational consequence. For decisions concerning ending use and preserving learner rights, each stage requires an identified owner and correction route.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-52]

The recommended response is to plan safe termination, deletion and continuing education. Within evidence on ending use and preserving learner rights, the institution should document purpose, population, data need, validity evidence, alternatives, human authority, safeguard and review date. For decisions concerning ending use and preserving learner rights, evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the consequence. In reviewing ending use and preserving learner rights, under uncertainty, limited reversible use is preferable to unrestricted institutional dependence.[REF-21] [REF-52] [REF-60]

Validity for ending use and preserving learner rights should be demonstrated for the stated educational use and population. For decisions concerning ending use and preserving learner rights, historical records, behavioural traces and administrative proxies may not measure learning or need directly. In reviewing ending use and preserving learner rights, coverage, missingness, error and group consequences should be examined. For accountability on ending use and preserving learner rights, an output should not circulate beyond the construct and setting for which evidence supports it.[REF-20] [REF-60]

Fairness review for ending use and preserving learner rights should retain levels and errors by material group where safe and feasible. In reviewing ending use and preserving learner rights, disability, gender, language, location, income and migration can affect data coverage and consequences. For accountability on ending use and preserving learner rights, equal use of a flawed measure is not substantive equality. For ending use and preserving learner rights, institutions should correct barriers and avoid turning historical exclusion into lower future opportunity.[REF-21] [REF-52] [REF-60]

Human oversight for ending use and preserving learner rights must be meaningful. For accountability on ending use and preserving learner rights, a trained competent person should understand the decision purpose, material limitations and learner evidence and should be able to depart from the output. For ending use and preserving learner rights, the learner should receive an understandable reason, correction route and continuing education while a material dispute is resolved.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-52] [REF-60]

Information governance for ending use and preserving learner rights should minimise personal data, restrict authorised access and establish retention and deletion conditions. For ending use and preserving learner rights, external provision should not prevent public scrutiny or learner rights. In governing ending use and preserving learner rights, contracts should preserve evidence access, incident cooperation, correction, data return and safe termination without losing education records.[REF-21] [REF-52] [REF-60]

Public accountability for ending use and preserving learner rights should identify the use, population, authority, provider role, evidence, safeguards, incidents and review status. In governing ending use and preserving learner rights, claims should remain within the pre-adoption cutoff and should not imply requirements from the later UNESCO Recommendation. Within evidence on ending use and preserving learner rights, continued use depends on verified educational benefit, fair distribution and absence of unacceptable harm.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-52] [REF-60]

A governance record for the adoption date controls interpretation should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning the adoption date controls interpretation, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing the adoption date controls interpretation, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-47] [REF-57]

A necessity assessment for the adoption date controls interpretation should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning the adoption date controls interpretation, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing the adoption date controls interpretation, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-09] [REF-19]

A termination plan for the adoption date controls interpretation should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning the adoption date controls interpretation, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing the adoption date controls interpretation, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-19] [REF-47] [REF-57]

A governance record for official source status and weight should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning official source status and weight, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing official source status and weight, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-21] [REF-57] [REF-58] [REF-60]

A necessity assessment for official source status and weight should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning official source status and weight, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing official source status and weight, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-21] [REF-57]

A termination plan for official source status and weight should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning official source status and weight, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing official source status and weight, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-57] [REF-58] [REF-60]

A governance record for existing rights remain applicable should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning existing rights remain applicable, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing existing rights remain applicable, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-15] [REF-22]

A necessity assessment for existing rights remain applicable should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning existing rights remain applicable, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing existing rights remain applicable, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-10] [REF-14]

A termination plan for existing rights remain applicable should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning existing rights remain applicable, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing existing rights remain applicable, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-14] [REF-15] [REF-22]

A governance record for education purpose before technology choice should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning education purpose before technology choice, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing education purpose before technology choice, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-57] [REF-59]

A necessity assessment for education purpose before technology choice should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning education purpose before technology choice, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing education purpose before technology choice, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-01] [REF-24]

A termination plan for education purpose before technology choice should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning education purpose before technology choice, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing education purpose before technology choice, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-24] [REF-57] [REF-59]

A governance record for risk proportionate to consequence should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning risk proportionate to consequence, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing risk proportionate to consequence, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

A necessity assessment for risk proportionate to consequence should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning risk proportionate to consequence, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing risk proportionate to consequence, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-21] [REF-58]

A termination plan for risk proportionate to consequence should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning risk proportionate to consequence, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing risk proportionate to consequence, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

A governance record for provisional governance under uncertainty should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning provisional governance under uncertainty, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing provisional governance under uncertainty, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-09] [REF-52] [REF-58] [REF-60]

A necessity assessment for provisional governance under uncertainty should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning provisional governance under uncertainty, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing provisional governance under uncertainty, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-09] [REF-52]

A termination plan for provisional governance under uncertainty should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning provisional governance under uncertainty, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing provisional governance under uncertainty, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-52] [REF-58] [REF-60]

A governance record for meaningful human decision authority should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning meaningful human decision authority, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing meaningful human decision authority, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

A necessity assessment for meaningful human decision authority should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning meaningful human decision authority, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing meaningful human decision authority, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-21] [REF-58]

A termination plan for meaningful human decision authority should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning meaningful human decision authority, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing meaningful human decision authority, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

A governance record for teacher professional agency should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning teacher professional agency, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing teacher professional agency, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-36] [REF-57]

A necessity assessment for teacher professional agency should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning teacher professional agency, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing teacher professional agency, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-01] [REF-24]

A termination plan for teacher professional agency should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning teacher professional agency, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing teacher professional agency, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-24] [REF-36] [REF-57]

A governance record for learner voice and understandable notice should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning learner voice and understandable notice, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing learner voice and understandable notice, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-60]

A necessity assessment for learner voice and understandable notice should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning learner voice and understandable notice, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing learner voice and understandable notice, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-14] [REF-21]

A termination plan for learner voice and understandable notice should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning learner voice and understandable notice, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing learner voice and understandable notice, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-60]

A governance record for no delegation of public duty should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning no delegation of public duty, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing no delegation of public duty, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-18] [REF-27] [REF-59] [REF-60]

A necessity assessment for no delegation of public duty should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning no delegation of public duty, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing no delegation of public duty, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-18] [REF-27]

A termination plan for no delegation of public duty should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning no delegation of public duty, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing no delegation of public duty, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-27] [REF-59] [REF-60]

A governance record for automation as one source, not the whole record should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning automation as one source, not the whole record, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing automation as one source, not the whole record, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-17] [REF-58]

A necessity assessment for automation as one source, not the whole record should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning automation as one source, not the whole record, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing automation as one source, not the whole record, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-05] [REF-09]

A termination plan for automation as one source, not the whole record should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning automation as one source, not the whole record, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing automation as one source, not the whole record, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-09] [REF-17] [REF-58]

A governance record for right to correction and effective remedy should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning right to correction and effective remedy, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing right to correction and effective remedy, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-10] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-60]

A necessity assessment for right to correction and effective remedy should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning right to correction and effective remedy, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing right to correction and effective remedy, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-10] [REF-20]

A termination plan for right to correction and effective remedy should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning right to correction and effective remedy, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing right to correction and effective remedy, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-60]

A governance record for purpose-limited data selection should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning purpose-limited data selection, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing purpose-limited data selection, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-58] [REF-60]

A necessity assessment for purpose-limited data selection should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning purpose-limited data selection, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing purpose-limited data selection, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-09] [REF-20]

A termination plan for purpose-limited data selection should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning purpose-limited data selection, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing purpose-limited data selection, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-20] [REF-58] [REF-60]

A governance record for population coverage and missing learners should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning population coverage and missing learners, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing population coverage and missing learners, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-59]

A necessity assessment for population coverage and missing learners should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning population coverage and missing learners, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing population coverage and missing learners, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-07] [REF-08]

A termination plan for population coverage and missing learners should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning population coverage and missing learners, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing population coverage and missing learners, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-59]

A governance record for construct validity in educational use should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning construct validity in educational use, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing construct validity in educational use, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-05] [REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-58]

A necessity assessment for construct validity in educational use should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning construct validity in educational use, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing construct validity in educational use, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-05] [REF-17]

A termination plan for construct validity in educational use should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning construct validity in educational use, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing construct validity in educational use, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-58]

A governance record for group fairness beyond average accuracy should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning group fairness beyond average accuracy, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing group fairness beyond average accuracy, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-10] [REF-38] [REF-53] [REF-60]

A necessity assessment for group fairness beyond average accuracy should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning group fairness beyond average accuracy, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing group fairness beyond average accuracy, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-10] [REF-38]

A termination plan for group fairness beyond average accuracy should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning group fairness beyond average accuracy, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing group fairness beyond average accuracy, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-38] [REF-53] [REF-60]

A governance record for historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-57] [REF-60]

A necessity assessment for historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-03] [REF-04]

A termination plan for historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing historical inequality and self-reinforcing labels, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-04] [REF-57] [REF-60]

A governance record for explanation appropriate to the decision should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning explanation appropriate to the decision, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing explanation appropriate to the decision, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-21] [REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

A necessity assessment for explanation appropriate to the decision should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning explanation appropriate to the decision, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing explanation appropriate to the decision, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-21] [REF-58]

A termination plan for explanation appropriate to the decision should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning explanation appropriate to the decision, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing explanation appropriate to the decision, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-58] [REF-59] [REF-60]

A governance record for admission and placement should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning admission and placement, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing admission and placement, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-10] [REF-21] [REF-47] [REF-59]

A necessity assessment for admission and placement should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning admission and placement, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing admission and placement, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-10] [REF-21]

A termination plan for admission and placement should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning admission and placement, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing admission and placement, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-21] [REF-47] [REF-59]

A governance record for assessment and grading should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning assessment and grading, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing assessment and grading, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-09] [REF-17] [REF-38] [REF-60]

A necessity assessment for assessment and grading should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning assessment and grading, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing assessment and grading, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-09] [REF-17]

A termination plan for assessment and grading should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning assessment and grading, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing assessment and grading, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-17] [REF-38] [REF-60]

A governance record for early warning and dropout prediction should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning early warning and dropout prediction, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing early warning and dropout prediction, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-14] [REF-23] [REF-57] [REF-60]

A necessity assessment for early warning and dropout prediction should compare the proposed automated function with less intrusive educational alternatives. For decisions concerning early warning and dropout prediction, it should identify the expected learner benefit, evidence required, data burden and consequences of error. In reviewing early warning and dropout prediction, institutional convenience should not outweigh the education entitlement, equality or an effective remedy.[REF-14] [REF-23]

A termination plan for early warning and dropout prediction should protect continuing teaching, preserve authoritative education records, correct residual labels and end unnecessary data access. For decisions concerning early warning and dropout prediction, it should assign responsibilities between the public institution and any external provider before use begins. In reviewing early warning and dropout prediction, this prevents dependency from becoming a reason to retain an ineffective or harmful arrangement.[REF-23] [REF-57] [REF-60]

A governance record for instructional recommendation should preserve the purpose, authority, affected population, data, validity evidence, human decision right, learner notice, complaint route and stopping condition. For decisions concerning instructional recommendation, it should be reviewed when the use, population, provider or evidence changes. In reviewing instructional recommendation, this makes ethical principles actionable without claiming a later normative instrument existed at the cutoff.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-57]