CoE AI Framework Convention (CETS 225)

The guard to add

Show an AI-identity notice at or before the first assistant turn, in the UI or as the opening message, and answer truthfully when asked if it is a bot.

A disclosure step on the chat path that runs before the first model reply reaches the person: either the chat UI renders a visible notice (banner, label next to the assistant's name) or the server sends an opening assistant message stating the counterpart is an AI. The same handler answers 'am I talking to a human?' truthfully, and the system prompt never tells the model to claim to be human. Put it in the chat entry point (the route or component that starts a conversation), not in a privacy policy or terms page.

Where it goes: 7 prompt construction, 9 AI output handling, 14 user-facing text.

const { messages, input, handleSubmit } = useChat({ api: '/api/chat' });

const { messages, input, handleSubmit } = useChat({
  api: '/api/chat',
  initialMessages: [{ id: 'ai-notice', role: 'assistant',
    content: 'I am an AI assistant, not a human.' }],
});
// and render <AiBadge /> next to every assistant message

Control: AI chat interaction without disclosure. The same guard addresses 16 items with binding law in 10 jurisdictions. Engineering guidance, not legal advice.

The guard to add

Send each adverse AI-assisted decision with its main reasons and the AI's role, plus a way to correct data and appeal to a human who can change the outcome.

Where model output becomes an adverse status (denied, declined, rejected, ineligible), the decision service stores reason codes or principal reasons, the model id and version, and an input snapshot or hash with the decision. The notice to the person (letter, email, portal response) says AI was involved and what role it played, lists the main factors, and links to data correction and to an appeal that creates a human-review task with authority to change the outcome. An explanation endpoint returns the stored record on request, so the deployer can explain a decision long after the model has changed.

Where it goes: 2 data models, 9 AI output handling, 14 user-facing text.

What this provision adds:

• Besides the contest route, tell affected persons how they can lodge a complaint with competent authorities.

resp = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=msgs)
if 'deny' in resp.choices[0].message.content.lower():
    application.status = 'denied'
    send_email(applicant.email, 'Your application was declined.')

a = Assessment.model_validate_json(resp.choices[0].message.content)   # decision, reason_codes
if a.decision == 'deny':
    decisions.insert(app_id=application.id, status='denied', reason_codes=a.reason_codes,
                     model=resp.model, input_hash=hashlib.sha256(payload).hexdigest())
    send_email(applicant.email, render('adverse_action_notice.txt',
        reasons=a.reason_codes,
        role_of_ai='An AI model assessed your application; a reviewer can change the outcome.',
        correct_data_url='/profile/data', appeal_url=f'/appeals/new?decision={application.id}'))

Control: Adverse AI decision without explanation/appeal. The same guard addresses 6 items with binding law in 2 jurisdictions. Engineering guidance, not legal advice.