The 5 Markers of Personal Liability Defense
Oversight habits built for a slower world fail when automated systems operate at immense speed and change continuously. This test discards abstract organisational compliance checklists and forces you to answer a binary standard across five strict personal markers:
- Participation: Were you actively involved in setting operational boundaries, or did you passively sign off on a technical framework?
- Information: Did you receive objective, verifiable performance metrics, or did you rely entirely on comforting, high-level corporate summaries?
- Understanding: Can you demonstrate a clear, independent grasp of the system’s failure modes and structural operational risks?
- Judgement: Did you exercise genuine, conscious human decision-making, or did you effectively delegate board authority to an algorithm?
- Evidence: Do you possess a permanent, personal trail of contemporaneous records that proves your active oversight under hostile cross-examination?
If you answer "No" to any piece, your personal legal defense fails before a trial even begins. You are exposed.
DAREB© - What must be shown for a decision to stand.
Most framework metrics analyae how an AI model is supposed to function in general terms. DAREB flips the perspective by isolating one single, real outcome affecting one specific person at an exact point in timesIt tracks the five strict elements of proof: Decision, Authority, Record, Evidence and Basis to verify if human responsibility can actually be established or if the trail is entirely broken.
The EU PLD Exposure Test.
The revised Product Liability Directive brings strict liability rules straight to software, AI systems, and automated updates. If your system causes harm and a court orders an evidence disclosure, gaps in your technical logs create an automatic legal presumption that your AI was defective.This 16-question framework maps your exposure across five critical structural vectors before a trial begins.