The DAREB Test sets out what must be shown when a single decision is examined. It looks at five things: the decision itself, who allowed it, where that authority is written down, what shows it actually happened, and the rule or agreement that made it allowed at the time. It does not describe a process. It defines a condition. Either those five things can be shown from existing material, or they cannot.
Most organisations can describe how their systems are meant to work. That is not the same as showing what happened in one real case. When a decision is challenged, the focus moves straight to a single outcome affecting a single person at a specific moment. The question becomes whether that outcome can be shown clearly from records and evidence that already exist.
No. It does not set steps to follow, and it does not tell anyone what to do. It defines what must be capable of being shown after a decision is questioned. It can be applied once or many times, but that does not change the condition it describes.
No. It applies to any automated or assisted decision where an outcome affects a person or a result. The same question arises in every case: can you show what happened, who allowed it, and why it was permitted at the time.
Because that is how decisions are examined in practice. A regulator, court, or insurer does not review a system in general terms. They take one outcome and ask for a clear account of that case. If the chain cannot be shown there, general descriptions do not fill the gap.
It means the answer can be produced from records and evidence that already exist. It does not mean that someone can explain what they believe happened. If it is not recorded and available, it cannot be relied on when the decision is tested.
Authority is the named person or body that allowed that type of decision to happen at that moment. It does not sit with a system or a process. It must be linked to someone who had the power to permit that outcome in that case.
The record is where that authority is written down in a form that can be produced. If authority is not recorded, it remains a claim. The record is what allows responsibility to be shown rather than asserted.
Evidence shows that the decision and its effect actually happened. It comes from what was captured at the time, not from later accounts. Without it, there is no way to confirm the outcome as described.
The basis is the rule, law, or agreement that made the decision allowed at that moment. It must have been in place at the time. A justification formed later is not the same thing.
Governance sets the conditions in advance. Responsibility sits with the person who had the authority when the decision was made. Accountability is tested afterwards, when someone asks to see the full chain. These are not separate ideas. They are the same chain viewed at different points in time.
If any part cannot be shown, the chain breaks. The decision may still have been made, but it cannot be demonstrated in a way that holds under examination. What is missing will not be filled by explanation or intention.
No. It does not aim to improve, fix, or design systems. It defines what must be true for a decision to be demonstrable after the fact.
No. The material is explanatory. It sets out conditions and shows what can and cannot be demonstrated. It does not advise, instruct, or tailor content to organisations.
It can be read on its own. It does not require adoption, integration, or follow-up. If someone chooses to apply it to a decision, the outcome is simple: either the five elements can be shown, or they cannot.