Independent AI bias auditing
The audit your AI hiring tools already need
Six jurisdictions now hold employers and vendors accountable for what their automated employment decision tools do to protected groups. We run the testing as your independent auditor, deliver a report that names us and give you the summary you publish.
What a bias audit is
A bias audit measures whether an automated decision system produces different outcomes for different protected groups. For a hiring tool that means calculating the selection rate for each group, comparing those rates as impact ratios and testing whether the gaps are large enough and stable enough to signal discrimination.
The method predates the AI laws. The four-fifths rule comes from the EEOC's 1978 Uniform Guidelines, and disparate impact doctrine goes back further still. What changed recently is that several jurisdictions now require the testing to happen, require an outside party to do it, and in New York City require you to publish the result.
A model that never sees race can still fail this test. That is the point of measuring outcomes rather than inspecting intentions.
What an independent audit gives you
An audit is worth what its independence is worth. Ours is structural: we hold no stake in the systems we test and sell no remediation work attached to a result.
Independent by construction
No equity, no revenue share, no consulting relationship with the systems we audit. Independence is what separates an audit from internal testing, and it is the first thing a regulator checks.
One engagement, several jurisdictions
The statistical core is shared across NYC, Colorado, Illinois, California, Title VII and the EU AI Act. We test once and report in the format each jurisdiction expects.
Built for the annual cycle
Most of these obligations repeat every year. Prior-year results stay available so you can see movement over time instead of starting from scratch each cycle.
Vendors and employers both
HR-tech vendors audit to clear procurement. Employers audit to meet a duty that sits on them directly. The testing is the same; the reporting and who publishes it differ.
Which law applies to you
Some name the audit outright. Others make the disparity itself the violation, which leaves testing as the only way to find the problem before someone else does.
NYC Local Law 144
New York City, USA
The first law anywhere to require an independent bias audit before an automated hiring tool can be used.
Colorado SB 26-189
Colorado, USA
Notice, explanation and human review when automated technology materially influences a consequential decision.
Illinois HB 3773
Illinois, USA
Makes discriminatory AI in employment decisions a civil rights violation, and bans zip code as a proxy for protected class.
California FEHA AI rules
California, USA
Brings automated-decision systems inside the Fair Employment and Housing Act, with four-year records and testing that cuts both ways.
EEOC and Title VII
United States, federal
The federal baseline. Adverse impact from a selection procedure is unlawful whether or not any AI-specific law names your state.
EU AI Act
European Union
Classifies employment AI as high-risk, requiring bias testing, data governance and conformity assessment before market entry.
How an engagement runs
About two weeks end to end for a single system with clean data.
Scope
We identify which systems are in scope, which jurisdictions apply and which protected categories each of those jurisdictions names. Scope errors are the most expensive mistake in an audit, so this stage is deliberate.
Data hand-off
Applicant-level records arrive by secure upload or through an API pull on a schedule. We confirm completeness and flag gaps in demographic coverage before any testing begins.
Testing
Selection and scoring rates per group, impact ratios against the most-selected group, intersectional cross-tabulation, significance testing and proxy analysis where a jurisdiction calls for it.
Review
A second reviewer checks methodology and results independently of whoever ran the analysis. Findings are shared with you before the report is finalised, so nothing in the signed document is a surprise.
Report and publication
You receive the signed audit report, the methodology notes and a publication-ready summary formatted for NYC Local Law 144, currently the one jurisdiction that requires publication. Prior-year reports stay available for comparison.
Find out what your tools are doing
Tell us which systems are in scope and where you operate. We will come back with the jurisdictions that apply and what an audit would involve.