OMP Domain Profile: Automated Decision Systems Accountability in Employment Under California FEHC CRC Regulations, New York City Local Law 144, and Related ADS Accountability Obligations
draft-veridom-omp-employ-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tolulope Adebayo , Oluropo Apalowo , Festus Makanjuola | ||
| Last updated | 2026-04-05 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-veridom-omp-employ-00
Internet Engineering Task Force T. Adebayo
Internet-Draft O. Apalowo
Intended status: Informational F. Makanjuola
Expires: 7 October 2026 Veridom Ltd
5 April 2026
OMP Domain Profile: Automated Decision Systems Accountability in
Employment Under California FEHC CRC Regulations, New York City Local
Law 144, and Related ADS Accountability Obligations
draft-veridom-omp-employ-00
Abstract
This document defines a domain profile of the Operating Model
Protocol (OMP) for automated decision systems (ADS) deployed in
employment contexts subject to the California Civil Rights Council
(CRC) Employment Regulations on Automated Decision Systems (effective
October 1, 2025), New York City Local Law 144 (bias audit requirement
for automated employment decision tools), the Illinois Artificial
Intelligence Video Interview Act (AIVIA), and related US state and
municipal ADS accountability obligations in employment.
The profile -- designated WorkMark -- specifies how OMP's
deterministic routing invariant, Watchtower enforcement framework,
and three-layer cryptographic integrity architecture satisfy the
record-retention, named accountability, bias audit evidence, and per-
decision auditability requirements applicable to employment ADS
deployments. The profile directly addresses the California CRC
requirement to retain ADS inputs, outputs, decision criteria, and
audit results for four years with named accountability for AI-
assisted hiring and employment decisions.
The OMP core specification is defined in the Operating Model Protocol
Internet-Draft (draft-veridom-omp).
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OMP Employment ADS Profile April 2026
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 October 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Employment ADS Regulatory Framework Analysis . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. California CRC Automated Decision Systems Regulations . . 5
3.2. New York City Local Law 144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Illinois Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act . . 5
3.4. Federal Context: EEOC AI Guidance and Title VII . . . . . 6
3.5. Colorado AI Act Employment Provisions . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6. Convergent Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. OMP WorkMark Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Routing States Under This Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Named Accountable Officer: The Employment Decision
Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Watchtower Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3.1. WT-EMPLOY-01: Employment Decision Authority Gate . . 7
4.3.2. WT-EMPLOY-02: ADS Confidence Floor Gate . . . . . . . 8
4.3.3. WT-EMPLOY-03: Disparate Impact Flag Gate . . . . . . 8
4.3.4. WT-EMPLOY-04: Candidate Human Review Request Gate . . 8
4.3.5. WT-EMPLOY-05: Bias Audit Threshold Alert Gate . . . . 9
4.3.6. WT-EMPLOY-06: AIVIA Consent Gate . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Audit Trace Schema Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Four-Year Retention Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Bias Audit Evidence Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. The WorkMark Invariant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OMP Employment ADS Profile April 2026
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Automated decision systems are now embedded across the employment
lifecycle: in resume screening, candidate ranking, video interview
analysis, skills assessment scoring, promotion modelling, workforce
planning, and termination risk prediction. These systems affect the
economic circumstances of individuals at scale, and the regulatory
frameworks governing their use are now moving from guidance to
enforceable obligation.
Three instruments have crystallised the per-decision accountability
requirements for employment ADS with sufficient precision to support
technical specification:
* The California CRC Employment Regulations on Automated Decision
Systems (effective October 1, 2025) require employers to retain,
for a minimum of four years from each employment decision, the
inputs, outputs, decision criteria, audit results, and named human
decision-maker for each ADS-assisted Covered Employment Decision.
* New York City Local Law 144 (in force) requires employers and
employment agencies using automated employment decision tools
(AEDTs) in hiring or promotion decisions to conduct annual
independent bias audits, publish results, and notify candidates
when an AEDT was used.
* The Illinois Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (AIVIA)
requires employers using AI to analyse video interviews to inform
candidates, obtain consent, limit data sharing, and retain the
video and its AI analysis.
These instruments converge on a structural evidence requirement that
maps directly onto OMP [I-D.veridom-omp]: every ADS-assisted
employment decision must generate a per-decision record documenting
what the ADS recommended, what data it used, how the recommendation
was weighted, and who was accountable for the final decision --
retained for a minimum of four years and independently verifiable by
regulators, candidates, and auditors.
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OMP Employment ADS Profile April 2026
This document defines the WorkMark profile: the domain-specific
instantiation of OMP for employment ADS accountability. WorkMark
denotes that every AI-assisted employment decision is
cryptographically marked against the employer's ADS accountability
obligations, producing a tamper-evident record that satisfies
California CRC four-year retention requirements, NYC Local Law 144
bias audit evidence standards, and AIVIA documentation obligations
through a single evidence architecture.
Related OMP domain profiles include the Clinical AI profile
[I-D.veridom-omp-clinical] and the EU AI Act Article 12 profile
[I-D.veridom-omp-euaia]. Audit Trace payloads are canonicalized per
[RFC8785]. The OMP specification is also archived at [ZENODO-OMP].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174].
2. Terminology
This document uses the terminology defined in [I-D.veridom-omp]. In
addition:
* Automated Decision System (ADS): A computational system that uses
machine learning, statistical modelling, data analytics, or
artificial intelligence to generate a score, classification,
recommendation, or other output that influences or replaces human
decision-making in an employment context.
* Covered Employment Decision: An employment decision in which an
ADS or AEDT was used to screen, rank, score, or otherwise
influence the outcome. Subject to the WorkMark Invariant.
* Employment Decision Authority (EDA): The human decision-maker
responsible for the final employment decision where an ADS was
used. In OMP terms, the Named Accountable Officer for ASSISTED
and ESCALATED interactions under this profile.
* Bias Audit: An impartial evaluation, conducted by an independent
auditor, of an AEDT to assess whether its outputs exhibit
disparate impact across race, sex, or intersectional categories,
as required by NYC Local Law 144.
* Four-Year Retention Period: The minimum period for which Covered
Employment Decision records must be retained under California CRC
Regulations, measured from the date of the employment decision.
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OMP Employment ADS Profile April 2026
* Disparate Impact Flag: A field in the WorkMark Audit Trace
indicating that the ADS output for this interaction falls within a
demographic category or score band that the employer's most recent
bias audit identified as exhibiting selection rate disparity above
the adverse impact threshold.
* WorkMark Invariant: The two-property invariant defined in
Section 7: every Covered Employment Decision generates a sealed
WorkMark Audit Trace retained for the Four-Year Retention Period,
independently verifiable by regulators, candidates, and auditors.
3. Employment ADS Regulatory Framework Analysis
3.1. California CRC Automated Decision Systems Regulations
The California CRC Employment Regulations [CA-CRC-ADS] (effective
October 1, 2025) require employers to retain for four years: ADS
inputs (candidate data, job requirements, scoring criteria); ADS
output (score, ranking, classification, recommendation); decision
criteria applied; weight given to ADS output in the final decision;
applicable bias audit results; and the identity of the human
decision-maker who made or approved the final decision. Records must
be producible to the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) upon
request.
3.2. New York City Local Law 144
NYC Local Law 144 [NYC-LL144] requires annual independent bias audits
of AEDTs used in hiring or promotion decisions affecting NYC
candidates, assessing selection rate disparities across race/
ethnicity, sex, and intersectional categories. Results must be
publicly disclosed. Candidates must receive at least ten business
days' advance notice that an AEDT will be used. The NYC Local Law
144 bias audit requirement creates the integration point with
Section 7 (Bias Audit Evidence Package) of this profile.
3.3. Illinois Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act
The Illinois AIVIA [IL-AIVIA] requires employers using AI to analyse
video interviews to inform candidates in writing, explain how the AI
works, obtain candidate consent, limit sharing of video and AI
analysis data to persons necessary for the hiring decision, and
retain the video and AI analysis for a minimum period. WT-EMPLOY-06
(AIVIA Consent Gate) gives the consent requirement structural
enforcement.
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OMP Employment ADS Profile April 2026
3.4. Federal Context: EEOC AI Guidance and Title VII
The EEOC [EEOC-AI-2023] "Use of Artificial Intelligence in Employment
Decisions" guidance (2023) states that employers cannot avoid Title
VII liability by attributing discriminatory outcomes to an AI vendor.
This reinforces the named accountability requirement in the WorkMark
profile: the Employment Decision Authority, not the AI vendor, is the
Named Accountable Officer. The WorkMark Audit Trace documents the
employer's accountability for ADS outcomes, consistent with the
EEOC's position.
3.5. Colorado AI Act Employment Provisions
Colorado's Artificial Intelligence Act (effective June 1, 2026)
requires deployers of high-risk AI in employment decisions to
maintain risk management programmes, provide applicant disclosures,
and implement discrimination mitigation measures. The WorkMark
profile's Disparate Impact Flag and Bias Audit Evidence Package
address the Colorado Act's discrimination mitigation evidence
requirements.
3.6. Convergent Requirements
California CRC, NYC Local Law 144, Illinois AIVIA, EEOC guidance, and
Colorado AI Act [CO-AI-ACT] define an evidence structure that maps
directly onto OMP's three routing states: ADS-assisted decisions
where the EDA reviewed, applied independent judgment, and documented
the basis correspond to ASSISTED; decisions where a Disparate Impact
Flag was triggered or the candidate invoked human review rights
correspond to ESCALATED; fully autonomous ADS employment decisions
are NOT PERMITTED for Covered Employment Decisions under this
profile.
4. OMP WorkMark Profile
4.1. Routing States Under This Profile
* AUTONOMOUS: NOT PERMITTED for Covered Employment Decisions. WT-
EMPLOY-01 MUST be configured as a universal FORCE_ASSISTED trigger
for all Covered Employment Decisions. AUTONOMOUS routing is
permitted only for administrative or pre-screening functions that
do not substantially influence an employment outcome (e.g.,
document format validation, scheduling coordination, initial
completeness screening without candidate ranking). Operators MUST
maintain a written classification of which interaction types are
non-Covered (AUTONOMOUS eligible) versus Covered Employment
Decisions, reviewed annually and producible to the CRD upon
request.
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OMP Employment ADS Profile April 2026
* ASSISTED: The standard routing state for Covered Employment
Decisions. The ADS generates a recommendation, score, ranking, or
classification; the Employment Decision Authority reviews, applies
independent human judgment, and documents the basis for the final
employment decision. The EDA's identity, review timestamp,
independent judgment basis, and final decision are sealed in the
WorkMark Audit Trace.
* ESCALATED: Triggered by: Disparate Impact Flag on ADS output (WT-
EMPLOY-03); candidate invocation of human review right (WT-EMPLOY-
04); ADS confidence failure (WT-EMPLOY-02); or bias audit
threshold alert (WT-EMPLOY-05). Under ESCALATED routing, the
final employment decision MUST be made by the EDA without reliance
on the ADS recommendation.
4.2. Named Accountable Officer: The Employment Decision Authority
The Named Accountable Officer under this profile is the Employment
Decision Authority: the individual who makes or approves the final
employment decision. For California CRC compliance, the EDA is the
individual whose identity is required in the four-year retention
record. For EEOC Title VII purposes, the EDA is the employer
representative whose decisions are attributable to the employer.
Required fields in the EDA record:
* eda_employee_id: stable identifier, consistent throughout the
Four-Year Retention Period;
* eda_role: role in the decision process (e.g., "hiring_manager",
"HR_business_partner");
* eda_review_timestamp: ISO 8601 UTC of the EDA's review and
decision;
* eda_decision: one of PROCEED_WITH_ADS_RECOMMENDATION,
PROCEED_MODIFIED, OVERRIDE, REJECT_CANDIDATE, ADVANCE_CANDIDATE;
* eda_independent_basis: REQUIRED for PROCEED_MODIFIED and OVERRIDE;
documents independent judgment and weight given to ADS
recommendation.
4.3. Watchtower Definitions
4.3.1. WT-EMPLOY-01: Employment Decision Authority Gate
*Trigger:* Any interaction classified as a Covered Employment
Decision.
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OMP Employment ADS Profile April 2026
*Action:* FORCE_ASSISTED. Cannot be disabled for Covered Employment
Decisions.
*Rationale:* California CRC Regulations require named accountability
for ADS-assisted employment decisions. EEOC guidance requires
employers to maintain responsibility for employment decision
outcomes. This Watchtower makes it architecturally impossible for a
Covered Employment Decision to be finalised without generating an EDA
review record.
4.3.2. WT-EMPLOY-02: ADS Confidence Floor Gate
*Trigger:* Composite Confidence Score falls below the employer's
configured employment decision floor.
*Action:* FORCE_ESCALATED. EDA makes the final decision without
reliance on the ADS recommendation. ADS output MAY be provided as
context, clearly labelled as below the employment decision confidence
floor.
*Rationale:* An ADS recommendation below the employment decision
floor represents insufficient confidence to influence the employment
outcome. ESCALATED routing ensures the EDA exercises independent
judgment.
4.3.3. WT-EMPLOY-03: Disparate Impact Flag Gate
*Trigger:* ADS recommendation, score, or ranking for this candidate
falls within a demographic category or score band that the employer's
most recent bias audit identified as exhibiting adverse impact
(selection rate below 80% of the highest-rate group, the four-fifths
rule).
*Action:* FORCE_ESCALATED. EDA reviews with specific awareness of
the disparate impact concern. disparate_impact_flag set to true. EDA
decision and independent basis are REQUIRED.
*Rationale:* NYC Local Law 144 and California CRC Regulations require
employers to assess and document disparate impact in ADS employment
decisions. ESCALATED routing ensures decisions in known adverse
impact zones are made by a human with full awareness of the bias
concern, documented in the Audit Trace for bias audit purposes.
4.3.4. WT-EMPLOY-04: Candidate Human Review Request Gate
*Trigger:* A candidate has invoked their right to human review of an
ADS-assisted decision under applicable law or employer policy.
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OMP Employment ADS Profile April 2026
*Action:* FORCE_ESCALATED. Candidate's request documented in
WorkMark Audit Trace. EDA conducts and documents a human review.
*Rationale:* Colorado's AI Act and emerging state frameworks provide
candidates the right to request human review of consequential AI
decisions. This Watchtower ensures candidate-invoked human review
generates a sealed record of the review and its outcome.
4.3.5. WT-EMPLOY-05: Bias Audit Threshold Alert Gate
*Trigger:* Aggregate selection rate for a protected class in the
ongoing WorkMark Audit Trace stream reaches the employer's configured
pre-adverse-impact alert threshold -- firing before the four-fifths
rule threshold is breached.
*Action:* FORCE_ASSISTED for all new interactions in the affected
demographic category, pending review by the employer's bias audit
authority. A bias audit alert record is generated.
*Rationale:* NYC Local Law 144 requires annual bias audits. WT-
EMPLOY-05 provides continuous monitoring enabling employers to
address emerging disparate impact before it becomes a documented
violation.
4.3.6. WT-EMPLOY-06: AIVIA Consent Gate
*Trigger:* For video interview AI deployments subject to Illinois
AIVIA: candidate has not provided documented consent to AI video
analysis, or consent record is missing or invalid.
*Action:* HARD_BLOCK. AI video analysis MUST NOT proceed without
valid candidate consent.
*Rationale:* Illinois AIVIA requires employers to obtain candidate
consent before using AI to analyse video interviews. HARD_BLOCK
ensures consent cannot be bypassed through system error or process
failure.
4.4. Audit Trace Schema Extensions
The following fields are REQUIRED under the WorkMark profile, in
addition to core fields in [I-D.veridom-omp] Section 7:
* eda_employee_id: string, REQUIRED for Covered Employment
Decisions. Stable identifier consistent throughout the Four-Year
Retention Period.
* eda_role: string, REQUIRED.
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OMP Employment ADS Profile April 2026
* eda_review_timestamp: string, ISO 8601 UTC, REQUIRED for ASSISTED
and ESCALATED.
* eda_decision: string, REQUIRED for ASSISTED and ESCALATED. One
of: PROCEED_WITH_ADS_RECOMMENDATION, PROCEED_MODIFIED, OVERRIDE,
REJECT_CANDIDATE, ADVANCE_CANDIDATE.
* eda_independent_basis: string, OPTIONAL for
PROCEED_WITH_ADS_RECOMMENDATION; REQUIRED for PROCEED_MODIFIED and
OVERRIDE. Documents independent judgment and weight given to the
ADS recommendation, satisfying the California CRC decision
criteria documentation requirement.
* ads_output_record: object, REQUIRED. MUST contain: output_type
("score", "ranking", "classification", or "recommendation");
output_value; output_timestamp (ISO 8601 UTC); ads_system_id;
ads_version.
* candidate_demographic_category: string, REQUIRED if lawfully
collected; otherwise "not_collected". Used for bias audit
assessment only.
* disparate_impact_flag: boolean, REQUIRED. True if WT-EMPLOY-03
triggered.
* bias_audit_reference: string, REQUIRED. Identifier of the most
recent bias audit applicable at the time of the decision. For NYC
Local Law 144, must reference an audit by an independent auditor
within the preceding 12 months.
* candidate_human_review_requested: boolean, REQUIRED. True if WT-
EMPLOY-04 triggered.
* employment_decision_category: string, REQUIRED. One of:
"initial_screening", "interview_scoring", "promotion",
"adverse_action", "compensation", "termination".
* aivia_consent_obtained: boolean, REQUIRED for video interview AI
deployments subject to Illinois AIVIA.
* four_year_retention_expiry: string, ISO 8601 date, REQUIRED.
Calculated as four years from eda_review_timestamp date.
Implementations MUST enforce retention until this date.
* profile_version: string, REQUIRED. MUST be "VERIDOM-WORKMARK-
v1.0".
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OMP Employment ADS Profile April 2026
5. Four-Year Retention Architecture
The California CRC Regulations require employers to retain Covered
Employment Decision records for a minimum of four years. The
WorkMark profile implements this through: per-decision retention with
a four_year_retention_expiry date enforced at generation; chain
integrity across the retention period enabling regulators and
auditors to verify that the complete set of WorkMark Audit Traces has
been retained without deletion or modification (a chain gap is
detectable as a chain integrity violation); regulator accessibility
within the four-year period within 30 seconds via the Proof-Point
generation mechanism; and retention across system migrations, with a
sealed migration event record documenting the transition and
preserving chain integrity.
6. Bias Audit Evidence Package
The WorkMark profile generates two types of bias audit evidence: per-
decision evidence (each Audit Trace contains the
candidate_demographic_category, disparate_impact_flag, and
bias_audit_reference fields) and aggregate evidence (the Audit Trace
stream can be aggregated to compute the selection rates and adverse
impact ratios required by NYC Local Law 144 annual bias audit
methodology from an independently verifiable basis).
The Bias Audit Evidence Package, produced using the OMP Proof-Point
artefact mechanism for a defined employment period, MUST contain: all
sealed WorkMark Audit Traces for the period organised by
employment_decision_category and ADS system; aggregate selection rate
data by candidate_demographic_category; disparate impact ratio
calculations for each demographic category and score band; count and
disposition of WT-EMPLOY-03 Disparate Impact Flag triggers; count and
disposition of WT-EMPLOY-04 Candidate Human Review Request triggers;
chain integrity proof (SHA-256 Merkle root); and RFC 3161 [RFC3161]
TimeStampToken verification from the OMP Reference Validator
[OMP-OPEN-CORE].
An independent bias auditor conducting an NYC Local Law 144 annual
audit can use the Bias Audit Evidence Package as the primary
evidentiary basis, verifying completeness and integrity without
relying on the employer's self-reported statistics.
7. The WorkMark Invariant
Implementations of this profile MUST satisfy the following two-
property invariant:
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OMP Employment ADS Profile April 2026
* Property 1 (Employment decision accountability completeness):
Every Covered Employment Decision MUST generate a sealed WorkMark
Audit Trace containing: the ADS output record; the EDA's identity
and review timestamp; the EDA's decision and independent basis
where required; the Disparate Impact Flag evaluation; and the
applicable bias audit reference. The Audit Trace MUST be retained
for the Four-Year Retention Period.
* Property 2 (Immutable trail): The WorkMark Audit Trace MUST be
sealed with the three-layer integrity architecture defined in
[I-D.veridom-omp] Section 7. Any modification to any historical
Audit Trace record MUST be detectable by any third party --
including the California CRD, the NYC Commission on Human Rights,
a bias auditor, or a court -- without access to the employer's or
OMP implementer's infrastructure.
An employer satisfying the WorkMark Invariant can demonstrate, for
any Covered Employment Decision within the Four-Year Retention
Period: the ADS output generated for the candidate; the EDA's
identity and review timestamp; the EDA's final decision and
independent basis for any departure from the ADS recommendation; the
Disparate Impact Flag status with reference to the applicable bias
audit; whether the candidate invoked human review; the applicable
bias audit; and that the record has not been altered since sealing.
This satisfies every element of a California CRC compliance
examination, NYC Local Law 144 bias audit, EEOC Title VII
investigation, and Colorado AI Act disparate impact assessment.
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [I-D.veridom-omp] apply in full.
Candidate data sensitivity: WorkMark Audit Traces contain candidate
PII and, where collected, demographic data. Operators MUST restrict
access to individuals with a legitimate need in the employment
decision process, HR governance, or bias audit function. Demographic
data fields MUST have additional access controls consistent with
applicable employment discrimination law.
EDA identity integrity: eda_employee_id MUST reflect the actual
individual who made or approved the final employment decision.
Operators MUST implement technical controls to prevent EDA identity
assignment without the relevant individual's authenticated action.
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OMP Employment ADS Profile April 2026
Bias audit data integrity: the WorkMark Audit Trace stream is the
evidentiary basis for the annual bias audit. The chain integrity
architecture makes selective deletion detectable: a chain gap will be
identified as a chain integrity violation in the Bias Audit Evidence
Package.
Demographic data segregation: where candidate demographic data is
collected for bias audit purposes, it MUST be segregated from the ADS
input data used in employment decisions, consistent with applicable
employment discrimination law restricting the use of protected
characteristics in employment decisions.
9. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.veridom-omp]
Adebayo, T., Apalowo, O., and F. Makanjuola, "Operating
Model Protocol (OMP): A Deterministic Decision-Enforcement
Protocol with Externalized Proof-of-Integrity", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-veridom-omp-00, March
2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
veridom-omp-00>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3161] Adams, C., Cain, P., Pinkas, D., and R. Zuccherato,
"Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Time-Stamp
Protocol (TSP)", RFC 3161, August 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3161>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8785] Rundgren, A., Jordan, B., and S. Erdtman, "JSON
Canonicalization Scheme (JCS)", RFC 8785, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8785>.
10.2. Informative References
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OMP Employment ADS Profile April 2026
[CA-CRC-ADS]
California Civil Rights Council, "Employment Regulations
on Automated Decision Systems", October 2025.
[CO-AI-ACT]
Colorado General Assembly, "Colorado Artificial
Intelligence Act (SB 24-205)", June 2026.
[EEOC-AI-2023]
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Use of
Artificial Intelligence in Employment Decisions", May
2023.
[I-D.veridom-omp-clinical]
Adebayo, T., Apalowo, O., and F. Makanjuola, "OMP Domain
Profile: Clinical AI Decision Accountability Under Joint
Commission/CHAI Guidance, California SB 1120, and Emerging
US State and Federal Healthcare AI Obligations", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-veridom-omp-clinical-00,
April 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
veridom-omp-clinical-00>.
[I-D.veridom-omp-euaia]
Adebayo, T., Apalowo, O., and F. Makanjuola, "OMP Domain
Profile: EU AI Act Article 12 Logging and Traceability
Requirements for High-Risk AI System Operators", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-veridom-omp-euaia-00,
April 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
veridom-omp-euaia-00>.
[IL-AIVIA] Illinois General Assembly, "Artificial Intelligence Video
Interview Act (820 ILCS 42)", January 2020.
[NYC-LL144]
New York City Council, "Local Law 144 of 2021: Automated
Employment Decision Tools", 2021.
[OMP-OPEN-CORE]
Veridom Ltd, "OMP Open Core: Reference Validator and
Schema Library", Apache 2.0,
https://github.com/veridomltd/omp-open-core, 2026.
[ZENODO-OMP]
Adebayo, T., Apalowo, O., and F. Makanjuola, "OMP --
Operating Model Protocol: A Deterministic Routing
Invariant for Tamper-Evident AI Decision Accountability in
Regulated Industries", Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19140948,
March 2026.
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OMP Employment ADS Profile April 2026
Authors' Addresses
Tolulope Adebayo
Veridom Ltd
London
United Kingdom
Email: tolulope@veridom.io
Oluropo Apalowo
Veridom Ltd
Awka
Nigeria
Email: ropo@veridom.io
Festus Makanjuola
Veridom Ltd
Toronto
Canada
Email: festus@veridom.io
Adebayo, et al. Expires 7 October 2026 [Page 15]