Skip to content
Human Intelligence seal
Human Intelligence
§ I · Domain SPC · Control 9 of 9
Control
SPC-09
Edition
v.1.3
Status
Public review

SPC · Agent Specification & Pre-Deployment Assurance · Critical

SPC-09Fairness evaluation

Prior to deployment and after material change, the agent is evaluated for performance disparities and discriminatory outcomes across protected and operationally relevant groups, using representative test populations and documented metrics.

The agent is evaluated for systematic disparities in output quality, accuracy, refusal rates, and outcomes across protected categories and operationally relevant groups. Testing uses representative test populations and documented metrics (e.g., demographic parity, equalized odds, calibration). Findings are remediated, mitigated, or formally accepted with executive sign-off.

(Critical)A Critical failure precludes HI-AAF Certification regardless of the maturity level achieved on any other control.

Table SPC-09.1 · Maturity criteria · v.1.3

L1 to L5 · the lowest level in scope caps the agent
L1Ad hoc

Controls exist informally; documentation is incomplete; no consistent review.

L2Documented

Controls are written down; ownership is assigned; review cadence is defined.

L3Operated

Controls are followed in practice; evidence is collected; deviations are tracked.

Fairness evaluation report exists for every production agent; documented metrics are used; findings have been dispositioned; the evaluation has been re-executed after the most recent material change.

L4Measured

Control effectiveness is measured against documented thresholds; trends are reported.

L5Continuously Improved

Controls evolve based on incident learning; maturity gains are evidenced over time.

The v1.3 edition publishes a control-specific criterion at L3 (Operated). The other levels apply the general ladder to this control; see the maturity ladder.

Evidence an assessor asks for

  1. E.1

    Fairness evaluation report exists for every production agent.

  2. E.2

    Documented metrics are used.

  3. E.3

    Findings have been dispositioned.

  4. E.4

    The evaluation has been re-executed after the most recent material change.

Table SPC-09.2 · Framework mappings

6 of 7 frameworks carry a control-level reference
NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.11, MEASURE 3.3NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0
ISO/IEC 42001A.6.2.5ISO/IEC 42001:2023 · Artificial intelligence management system
OWASP LLM Top 10·OWASP Top 10 for Large Language Model Applications
SOC 2 (TSC)CC1.1AICPA Trust Services Criteria for SOC 2 Type II
EU AI ActArt. 10(2), Art. 10(5)EU AI Act · Regulation (EU) 2024/1689
MITRE ATLASEvaluationMITRE ATLAS · Adversarial Threat Landscape for AI Systems
SingaporeMAIGF Testing & Assurance, AI Verify Reproducibility, AI Verify SafetySingapore Model AI Governance Framework / AI Verify / PDPA

Mappings are directional: meeting this control evidences but does not by itself satisfy the external requirement. A middle dot means no control-level reference is published at this edition; see the crosswalk.

Related controls and terms

Cite this control

Human Intelligence. HI-AAF v1.3, SPC-09 Fairness evaluation. Public review edition, July 2026. https://humanintel.net/standard/spc/spc-09

Edition v.1.3 · July 2026 · Public review · Markdown · PDF

https://humanintel.net/standard/spc/spc-09

Notice

HI-AAF v1.3 is an independent framework published by Human Intelligence. It is not affiliated with NIST, ISO, AICPA, or any government or accreditation body. The framework is offered openly for review during the current draft cycle.