Explainability

The requirement, in our words

Analyse, for each interested party, the benefits and harms tied to explainability: whether the person can understand the important factors behind a result, and what follows when the explanation is missing or wrong.

What it means for human oversight

An overseer cannot judge an output they cannot understand, and an affected person cannot challenge a decision they cannot see. The analysis should decide what explanation each party needs and how it is delivered.

How to evidence it

Attach the artefacts above to the Explainability row with the system name, the owner and the date. The first one is the anchor: An explainability analysis per party across the life cycle. The OH-38 file is complete when the named person can produce that artefact and explain the decision it records, without asking someone else where it is.

The reviewer will sample one live decision and ask for The information gaps that matter for decisions. If that artefact for OH-38 cannot be produced, the row is a gap, whatever the policy says.

OH-38 carries 3 evidence items and 2 common gaps. For explainability, observe one live decision rather than reading the procedure, because the question is whether the person can use the control without asking permission. The OH-38 statement above is ours, written from ISO/IEC 42005:2025, 6.8.2.8, not a reproduction of the licensed text.

Common gaps

• Opaque model used for decisions affecting people with no analysis
• The effect of a wrong explanation never considered

Related units

• Competence of the overseer
• Responsible use
• Context and the role you play