“Compliance with this assessment list is not evidence of legal compliance, nor is it intended as guidance to ensure compliance with applicable law. Given the application-specificity of AI systems, the assessment list will need to be tailored to the specific use case and context in which the system operates. In addition, this chapter offers a general recommendation on how to implement the assessment list for Trustworthy AI though a governance structure embracing both operational and management level.” (High-Level Expert Group on AI, 2019, p. 24)“TRUSTWORTHY AI ASSESSMENT LIST (PILOT VERSION) “Communication: - Did you communicate to (end-)users – through a disclaimer or any other means – that they are interacting with an AI system and not with another human? Did you label your AI system as such? - Did you establish mechanisms to inform (end-)users on the reasons and criteria behind the AI system’s outcomes? - Did you communicate this clearly and intelligibly to the intended audience? - Did you establish processes that consider users’ feedback and use this to adapt the system? - Did you communicate around potential or perceived risks, such as bias? - Depending on the use case, did you consider communication and transparency towards other audiences, third parties or the general public? - Did you clarify the purpose of the AI system and who or what may benefit from the product/service? - Did you specify usage scenarios for the product and clearly communicate these to ensure that it is understandable and appropriate for the intended audience? - Depending on the use case, did you think about human psychology and potential limitations, such as risk of confusion, confirmation bias or cognitive fatigue? - Did you clearly communicate characteristics, limitations and potential shortcomings of the AI system? - In case of the system's development: to whoever is deploying it into a product or service? - In case of the system's deployment: to the (end-)user or consumer?” (High-Level Expert Group on AI, 2019, p. 29)