Skip to content
AI Policy Generator

Assessments, matrices and reports · Report · Risk

Bias Audit Report (Impact Ratio)

Report template with selection rates and impact ratios by sex, race or ethnicity and their intersection, a publishable summary and record retention, plus an optional credit and insurance annex (ECOA protected bases, approval rates and pricing differences). Where New York City requires an independent auditor, it is a reference for structuring the auditor's report; it does not replace the audit.

GROU LLC · built on AI Business Core, by Vreinn · · How we verify sources

Who it helps

Employers and agencies using automated employment decision tools in New York City, California or other markets with anti-discrimination rules, and lenders or insurers using models in credit or insurance decisions.

Who uses it
HR, data science, legal and independent auditors
Usual owner
Audit; HR; data science
Formats
DOCX, PDF
Languages
Español, English
Approximate length
10 pages
Length
Extended. An assessment or file with several parts, annexes and records.
Document type
Assessments, matrices and reports. Tools to analyze a system, a vendor or a risk and document the conclusion.
Document code
APG-RSK-008. APG is the AI Policy Generator collection, RSK the area (Risk) and the number identifies the document. Use it to cite the document in your document system.

Preview

Excerpt generated from the document: the "How to use this document" section, the title and the first two sections, plus the full table of contents. The rest of the text is not shown.

APG-RSK-008 · Version 1.1.0 · sources as of November 4, 2026

How to use this document

  • Use it to document a bias audit of an automated tool used in hiring, promotion or people management decisions: data used, method, selection or scoring rates, impact ratios by sex, race or ethnicity and their intersection, findings, measures and a publishable summary.
  • Where a law requires the audit to be performed by an independent auditor (for example, in New York City), this document is a reference structure for that auditor's report and for the prior internal review. It does not replace the independent audit.
  • Give it a clear owner: usually HR or internal audit, with data science for the calculations, legal for interpretation and the tool vendor for the data.
  • Before adopting it, the organization should decide who performs the audit (internal team or independent auditor), where demographic data comes from, which alert threshold it uses for the impact ratio and who approves the measures.
  • Complete one audit per tool and, if the tool is used differently across roles or stages, consider whether each use needs a separate analysis.
  • Use section 9 or sections 6 to 8 depending on whether the tool classifies (selects or rejects) or scores people. Delete the one that does not apply.
  • If the tool is used in credit or insurance, also complete the section 18 annex [OPTIONAL]; otherwise delete it.
  • Keep only the country variants that apply and delete the rest. In the United States several may apply at once (city, state and federal rules).
  • Fields marked [COMPLETE] include points to confirm with your advisor, such as the definition of a covered tool, auditor independence requirements, the threshold for excluding small categories and retention periods.
  • Before publishing the summary in section 16, have it reviewed by in-house legal or an external advisor.

Bias Audit Report (Impact Ratio)

Field Content
Organization using the tool [LEGAL ENTITY NAME] ([ORGANIZATION NAME])
Tool audited [AI SYSTEM]
Vendor and version [VENDOR] / [COMPLETE]
Decisions it is used for Hiring / Promotion / Other: [COMPLETE]
Roles or processes covered [COMPLETE]
Jurisdictions of use [COUNTRY]
Auditor [COMPLETE: name and organization]
Type of audit Independent / Prior internal / Follow-up
Audit date [DATE]
Period of data analyzed [DATE] to [DATE]
Date the tool was first used [DATE]
Internal owner [OWNER]
Contact [AI GOVERNANCE EMAIL]

1. Purpose and scope

1.1 This report documents the bias audit of the tool identified above, carried out to check whether its outputs affect people unequally by sex, race or ethnicity and the combination of both, and to decide the appropriate measures.

1.2 The analysis covers the tool's outputs at the stage of the process where it is used. It does not assess the tool's validity for predicting job performance, unless stated in section 11.

1.3 For tools used in credit or insurance, the section 18 annex is also completed. For other consumer uses, replace the categories and decisions with those relevant to that use.

2. Auditor independence

2.1 When the audit is presented as independent, the auditor declares:

Criterion Yes / No Comment
Has not been involved in developing, distributing or using the tool
Has no employment relationship, and has had none during the audit, with the organization or the vendor
Has no direct financial interest or material indirect interest in the organization or the vendor
Compensation does not depend on the audit outcome

2.2 [COMPLETE: confirm with your advisor the independence criteria required by the applicable law.]

Full table of contents of the document:

  • 1. Purpose and scope
  • 2. Auditor independence
  • 3. Description of the tool and its use
  • 4. Data used
  • 5. Methodology
  • 6. Results by sex
  • 7. Results by race or ethnicity
  • 8. Intersectional results
  • 9. Results for scoring tools
  • 10. Excluded and unknown categories
  • 11. Complementary analyses
  • 12. Findings
  • 13. Measures and action plan
  • 14. Limitations
  • 15. Signatures
  • 16. Summary of results for publication
  • 17. Record retention
  • 18. [OPTIONAL] Credit and insurance annex
  • Country variants
  • Implementation aids
  • Related regulatory references
  • Version history

Rules in the registry whose obligations relate to this base document, based on our reading of the sources. It does not mean they apply to you.

Argentina

Brazil

Chile

Colombia

Ecuador

Spain

European Union

International standards

Mexico

United States (federal)

California

New York (incl. NYC)

Illinois

Kits that include this document

Includes 5 documents

US AI in Employment Kit (New York, Illinois, California, Colorado)

Reference template for the impact-ratio bias audit report (in New York City an independent auditor performs it), AI hiring policy, AI-use notice to candidates, human oversight and a decision log, related to New York, Illinois, California and Colorado employment rules.

USD 119USD 215

Complete kit · available to buy

Includes 91 documents

Complete pack

Every sellable template in the catalog in a single pack: base policies, procedures, registers, notices and matrices to adapt with your own team, at a flat price below the sum of the individual documents.

USD 297USD 3393

Complete kit · available to buy

What AI Policy Generator is and how it works