EVIDENCE ARTEFACTS
- Versioned decision record
- Named ownership and approval
- Implementation or test evidence
SDF-03v1.0
CONTROL RECORD · REVIEWED 2026-08-30
Algorithmic due diligence
Make algorithmic due diligence an inspectable system decision with a named owner, defined trigger and retrievable evidence.
Engineering control
Catalogue status
not legal status
RECORD ANATOMY
What this control needs to be reviewable.
- Objective
- Make algorithmic due diligence an inspectable system decision with a named owner, defined trigger and retrievable evidence.
- Rationale
- Assign policy, training, testing and heightened-duty evidence without turning assurance into a compliance badge.
- Owner model
- Governance owner · Assessment owner · Independent reviewer
- Review frequency
- Only when applicable, on the verified statutory and governance cadence
- Architecture layer
- Governance and assurance
- Version
- 1.0 · 2026-08-30
IMPLEMENTATION SEQUENCE
Move from scope to retrievable evidence.
- 01
Scope the decision: define scope and evidence, record confidence and findings, then verify remediation independently.
- 02
Record the approved design and its source-status verification boundary.
- 03
Connect implementation events to evidence that a reviewer can retrieve without broad production access.
CONTROL TEST
- Select a recent, in-scope sample for algorithmic due diligence and record why it was chosen.
- Trace the sample from its trigger and owner through the implemented system to the retained evidence.
- Record exceptions, confidence and remediation without converting an unknown into a pass.
ANTI-PATTERNS
Completion labels can hide an evidence gap.
- Treating “algorithmic due diligence” as a policy sentence without an operating owner
- Marking the control complete from self-attestation alone
- Hiding missing, stale or inaccessible evidence behind a pass label
ARCHITECTURE → EVIDENCE DECISION JOURNEY
Follow the dependency, then inspect the proof.
Each connection uses existing catalogue records. Source IDs remain verification pointers—not provision mappings.
Add to a review route- Control pathwaySDF-03: Algorithmic due diligence
- 01 · PrerequisiteAudit readiness record
Review SDF-02 before testing this dependent record.
Engineering indicator · not a legal requirement · Verification pointers: dpdp-act-2023 - 02 · Implementation patternSDF DPIA and audit evidence room
Organise applicability, scope, findings and remediation without implying designation or certification.
Engineering indicator · not a legal requirement · Verification pointers: dpdp-act-2023, dpdp-rules-2025, act-commencement-2025 - 03 · Validation / testSelect a recent, in-scope sample for algorithmic due diligence and record why it was chosen.
Trace the sample from its trigger and owner through the implemented system to the retained evidence. Record exceptions, confidence and remediation without converting an unknown into a pass.
Engineering indicator · not a legal requirement · Verification pointers: dpdp-act-2023 - 04 · Evidence artefactVersioned decision record
Named ownership and approval · Implementation or test evidence
Engineering indicator · not a legal requirement · Verification pointers: dpdp-act-2023 - 05 · Failure modeTreating “algorithmic due diligence” as a policy sentence without an operating owner
Marking the control complete from self-attestation alone · Hiding missing, stale or inaccessible evidence behind a pass label
Engineering indicator · not a legal requirement · Verification pointers: dpdp-act-2023 - 06 · Research noteWhy a compliance score must show confidence and evidence type
Assessment interfaces should separate requirement applicability, control design, implementation evidence and test confidence before summarising results. Radar context: Confidential-computing claims is Watch.
Editorial analysis · reviewed 2026-08-30 · sources dpdp-act-2023, pib-status-2026 - 07 · Specialist propertyPrivacy talent pathways
Explore role and talent pathways without invented qualifications or hiring claims. This route remains optional if the destination is unavailable.
Contextual external property · no affiliation or availability implied
- 01 · PrerequisiteAudit readiness record
Open semantic relationship table (1pathway)
| Record | Phase | Relationship | Status / boundary | Source pointers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SDF-03: Algorithmic due diligence | 01 · Prerequisite | Audit readiness record Review SDF-02 before testing this dependent record. | Engineering indicator · not a legal requirement · Verification pointers: dpdp-act-2023 | dpdp-act-2023 |
| SDF-03: Algorithmic due diligence | 02 · Implementation pattern | SDF DPIA and audit evidence room Organise applicability, scope, findings and remediation without implying designation or certification. | Engineering indicator · not a legal requirement · Verification pointers: dpdp-act-2023, dpdp-rules-2025, act-commencement-2025 | dpdp-act-2023 · dpdp-rules-2025 · act-commencement-2025 |
| SDF-03: Algorithmic due diligence | 03 · Validation / test | Select a recent, in-scope sample for algorithmic due diligence and record why it was chosen. Trace the sample from its trigger and owner through the implemented system to the retained evidence. Record exceptions, confidence and remediation without converting an unknown into a pass. | Engineering indicator · not a legal requirement · Verification pointers: dpdp-act-2023 | dpdp-act-2023 |
| SDF-03: Algorithmic due diligence | 04 · Evidence artefact | Versioned decision record Named ownership and approval · Implementation or test evidence | Engineering indicator · not a legal requirement · Verification pointers: dpdp-act-2023 | dpdp-act-2023 |
| SDF-03: Algorithmic due diligence | 05 · Failure mode | Treating “algorithmic due diligence” as a policy sentence without an operating owner Marking the control complete from self-attestation alone · Hiding missing, stale or inaccessible evidence behind a pass label | Engineering indicator · not a legal requirement · Verification pointers: dpdp-act-2023 | dpdp-act-2023 |
| SDF-03: Algorithmic due diligence | 06 · Research note | Why a compliance score must show confidence and evidence type Assessment interfaces should separate requirement applicability, control design, implementation evidence and test confidence before summarising results. Radar context: Confidential-computing claims is Watch. | Editorial analysis · reviewed 2026-08-30 · sources dpdp-act-2023, pib-status-2026 | dpdp-act-2023 · pib-status-2026 |
| SDF-03: Algorithmic due diligence | 07 · Specialist property | Privacy talent pathways Explore role and talent pathways without invented qualifications or hiring claims. This route remains optional if the destination is unavailable. | Contextual external property · no affiliation or availability implied | None · contextual external route |
VERIFY BEFORE MAPPING
GENERIC VERIFICATION POINTER · NOT A PROVISION MAPPING
dpdp-act-2023
Provision-specific applicability must be verified against the primary-text ledger.
Boundary: Operational control pattern; not a standalone legal conclusion.
Open the source ledgerCONNECTED SYSTEM PATTERN
SDF DPIA and audit evidence room
Organise applicability, scope, findings and remediation without implying designation or certification.
LOCAL WORKSPACE NOTE
Give this work a next owner.
Nothing is sent anywhere. Avoid names, personal data or confidential incident details.
CHANGE LOG
Version 1.3 — Architecture-to-evidence journey and non-personal review-route relationship added; verification-pointer boundary retained.
Version 1.2 — Official-source status rechecked; command-centre indexing and the non-mapping boundary retained.
Version 1.1 — Engineering fields, source verification pointers and acceptance evidence reviewed.
Version 1.0 — Stable catalogue ID, objective, evidence model, test sequence and verification boundary established.