Register interest

Home > Worked examples > Fernhill Finance adverse decision

Evidence your own AI Gate: The position after an adverse automated decision Fictional walkthrough

The decision file after an adverse automated decision.

When the declined applicant disputed the decision, the file already showed what was captured at the time, what was assembled later, and the source of each item.

Fernhill Finance · a consumer lender · company name fictional

The situation

An automated decline, then a dispute.

A declined applicant disputes the decision, and the dispute escalates to a venue that carries consequence.

The gate

Who authorised it, on what basis, and what was captured when.

Reviewer: A complaints body, regulator or the applicant's counsel.

Evidence requested: Who authorised the decision, on what basis, what the system knew, what thresholds and rules were in force, what notice or disclosure was provided, and how each item was captured.

Before Custara

Rebuilt once a claim is in view.

The decision is rebuilt after the fact from logs, a model registry, screenshots and staff recollection, which is weak evidence once a dispute is in view.

The record

The decision, and the response, each with its capture method.

Governance Evidence Record

GER-5090 · scope: adverse automated decision file

Completeness map

Featured item 1: the declined decision · from a system at the time

What was done: Application declined by the automated system.

On what basis: Input state, model version and thresholds in force.

Under whose authority: The accountability holder and the authority boundary the system operated within.

Why it matters: The record identifies the decision, the conditions in force and the authority under which the system acted.

Featured item 2: the dispute response · documented at the time

What was done: The dispute was logged and routed for review.

On what basis: The decision file, applicant correspondence and the internal review procedure.

Under whose authority: The complaints owner or accountable function responsible for the response.

Why it matters: The response record shows the governance response to the challenge, without deciding whether the original decision was lawful or fair.

from a system at the time documented at the time reconstructed stated

Where an item was assembled later, the record shows it as reconstructed, not passed off as contemporaneous. Capture at the enforcement point, with an independent reference, is the direction the product is designed toward.

integrity reference · source, date and capture method retained · export history retained

Fictional record. Status reflects record completeness, not governance judgement. Not a score, an assessment or a certification.

Handoff and reuse

A venue weighs it. Custara did not defend it.

Gap visible: Applicant-facing notice or disclosure is Needs source, shown, not hidden.

Exported pack: A decision file for the venue: the specific decision, its basis, its authority, its capture method and an integrity reference for the items available at the time. A later item is shown as reconstructed.

Reused later: The complaints body or regulator, then internal review and the applicant's counsel if the matter proceeds.

The boundary

The venue decides lawfulness and fairness.

Custara preserved what the system did, what was available at the time and how each item was captured. Whether the decision was lawful, fair or defensible is for the venue. Custara prepared the evidence file; it did not produce a legal reasons notice and did not defend the decision.

The takeaway

When the declined applicant disputed the decision, the file already showed what was captured at the time, what was assembled later, and the source of each item.

Register interest See the evidence record
Previous: Ardent Super board decision Next: HarbourBank vendor review