Module · Prove what the AI did

The AI Evidence & Documentation Check

When a regulator, a court, or a customer asks you to justify an AI-driven decision, memory and good intentions are not evidence. You either kept the record at the time or you did not, and no amount of reconstruction after the fact fully closes the gap. This module checks the five things that make an AI decision defensible: decision logs, versioned prompts and configs, dated approvals, reproducibility, and a retention policy that keeps the evidence long enough to matter.

Question 1 of 5 · Decisions are logged

For an AI-influenced decision, can you show what the system recommended and what was done?

The defensible record is not 'the AI suggested it' but the actual inputs, the recommendation, and the human action that followed. Without a decision log captured at the time, you are reconstructing from memory under pressure. Auditors and courts read contemporaneous records, not later explanations.

Question 2 of 5 · Prompts and configs versioned

Can you tell which prompt and settings produced an output six months ago?

The same model gives different answers as prompts, parameters and system messages change. If those are not versioned, you cannot say what configuration produced a given result, and you cannot explain a past decision. A prompt edited in place erases its own history.

Question 3 of 5 · Approvals are dated

When someone signed off on deploying an AI system, is that decision recorded and dated?

Governance that leaves no dated trace is invisible to an auditor. Who approved a deployment, on what date, on what evidence: that record is what shows a decision was made deliberately rather than drifted into. A verbal yes in a meeting is not documentation.

Question 4 of 5 · Past outputs reproduce

If challenged, could you reproduce an AI output your company relied on a year ago?

Reproducibility is the hardest evidence and the most convincing: showing that the same inputs and configuration still yield the same result. It depends on having kept the model version, the prompt, the data and the settings together. Without it, you can describe a decision but not demonstrate it.

Question 5 of 5 · Evidence is kept long enough

Do your AI records survive as long as the decisions they justify can be challenged?

Evidence that is deleted before the limitation period ends is no evidence at all. Retention has to match how long a decision can come back: contract terms, regulatory windows, statutory limits. Too short and you are exposed; forever and you create a different liability. Someone has to have decided.

For the statistics · one click each

Three questions for the public picture

These do not affect your score. They feed the anonymised, aggregated statistics; groups under 8 respondents are never shown.

Do you keep decision logs for AI-influenced decisions?

None

For some decisions

For most decisions

For all high-stakes decisions

Not sure

Could you reproduce an important AI output from a year ago?

Roughly

For some

Yes, reliably

We have never tried

Have you ever been asked to evidence an AI decision?

Never

Internally only

By a customer

By a regulator or court

Prefer not to say

Your context

Used to calibrate the report. Company size and sector remain in the anonymized dataset; your email does not.

Company size Sector (optional)

Your corporate email required

We do not accept Gmail, Outlook, GMX, etc. Use your company domain.

Anonymised answers feed aggregated public statistics (groups under 8 respondents are never shown); your email is deleted after confirmation. Details: Datenschutz.

I agree that my anonymized answers (without my email or company name) may be used in Thorsten's published analysis. Tell me when new assessments or question modules go live. One email per launch, opt out any time with one click.