Human-Machine Interaction & Ethics

As soon as a system makes decisions with consequences, someone has to own the line between machine and human judgement. Left implicit, that line gets drawn by whoever configured the tool, and it only becomes visible when something goes wrong.

This unit makes it explicit. Which decisions the system takes alone, which need a person, what information that person needs to make the review meaningful rather than ceremonial, and how the whole arrangement is documented for an auditor or a regulator.

The design work is concrete. A clinician overriding a diagnostic suggestion, an underwriter reviewing an automated decline, an operator supervising a semi-autonomous vehicle: each needs a different interaction model, different latency, and a different standard of explanation. Rubber-stamp oversight is worse than none, because it creates a record of review that did not happen.

This is a design and engineering problem rather than a compliance exercise, though it produces artefacts that compliance needs. Our legal units cover the obligations themselves.

Typical mandates: an autonomy and oversight model for a system going into production, an AI ethics framework an enterprise buyer has asked for, an interaction redesign after operators started ignoring the alerts, or evidence for a regulatory submission.