Case
SWANK::AI engagements typically involve structured analysis of how AI systems behave in practice, particularly where outcomes are contested or scrutiny is emerging.
The following example is illustrative only.
No client identifiers, proprietary information, or confidential materials are included.
Context
An organisation deployed an AI-supported decision system intended to improve consistency and efficiency in a high-impact operational context.
Following deployment, concerns were raised internally and externally regarding fairness, transparency, and escalation handling. While the system was described as “assistive,” its outputs were being relied upon in practice.
The organisation sought an independent analytical review to clarify how risk and impact were arising.
Scope of Review
The engagement was limited to:
- review of system documentation and decision logic descriptions
- analysis of escalation pathways and human oversight mechanisms
- examination of representative output scenarios
- assessment of foreseeable harm and unequal impact
No access to proprietary source code was required or provided.
Analytical Focus
Analysis focused on:
- how decision thresholds were set and applied
- where discretion was constrained or deferred to the system
- whether escalation mechanisms functioned as described
- how accountability was framed across technical and human actors
Particular attention was paid to gaps between stated intent and operational behaviour.
Findings (Illustrative)
The analysis identified:
- structural bias arising from how input categories were weighted
- escalation pathways that existed on paper but were rarely activated in practice
- ambiguity regarding who held responsibility for adverse outcomes
- a mismatch between the system’s described role and how it was relied upon operationally
None of these issues were attributable to a single design choice; risk accumulated across multiple layers.
Outcome
Findings were documented in a written analytical report suitable for internal governance and oversight review.
The report clarified:
- where risk was structural rather than incidental
- which issues were design-related versus operational
- what limitations applied to the analysis
No certification, endorsement, or compliance opinion was provided.
Boundary Note
This example is illustrative of analytical structure only.
SWANK::AI does not publish client work, name organisations, or disclose confidential materials.