Skip to content

Right to explanation

The right to explanation is the shorthand for a person's entitlement to meaningful information about the logic, significance and consequences of automated processing that affects them, and, where a decision is automated, to obtain human intervention and contest it. Its exact legal scope is debated; its practical demand is not.

A person who can ask how a conclusion about them was reached, and get an answer they can follow, is the test the phrase points at.

Why it matters when the plan changes

A conclusion about a person that cannot be explained cannot be checked, corrected or contested, which is what makes it dangerous rather than merely opaque. Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation gives a person the right to confirm whether their data is processed and to see it; Recital 71 gives them standing to contest a decision evaluating personal aspects if it was reached by automated processing alone. The right is also the condition under which a leader can responsibly rely on a recommendation about someone else.

The tension is that explanation and accuracy can pull apart: simpler reasoning is easier to explain and may predict less well, while richer models predict better and resist plain accounts. For decisions about people the regulation and the ethics point the same way: an output that cannot be explained to the person it concerns should not be deciding anything about them.

In practice

A candidate is told they were not shortlisted and asks why. The recruiter can say a tool was used and cannot say what it measured or how the result bore on the decision. The candidate files an access request and a complaint. The same tool with its reasoning, evidence and confidence visible would have let the recruiter answer in one conversation.

Evidence

What it cannot tell you

The right to explanation establishes that a person can demand meaningful information about the logic and contest a decision; it does not establish that the explanation given is technically complete or that contesting it changes the outcome. It is silent on whether the underlying processing is accurate, only on whether it can be described and challenged.

Questions

The phrase draws on Recital 71 of the General Data Protection Regulation (2016) rather than an operative article, and lawyers disagree about its exact force. Article 15 of the same regulation gives the right of access; Recital 71 gives the right to contest a solely automated decision evaluating personal aspects. Together those do most of the work.

One the person can follow and act on: what was measured, how it bore on the conclusion, what confidence it carried and what argued against it. A statement that a model was used, or a list of variables without their weight in the decision, does not meet that standard.

The strongest provisions, drawn from Recital 71, attach to solely automated decisions. Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation (2016) gives access rights to any processing, so a person assessed by a system that supports a human decision can still ask what was measured and how it was used.

It pushes toward recording reasoning at the point a conclusion is made rather than reconstructing it later, and toward keeping evidence and counter-evidence beside each claim. A system built that way can explain itself as a by-product; one built otherwise cannot be retrofitted.

The controller, which at work is the employer, usually through the leader who made the decision. That person needs to have understood the reasoning themselves, which is why decision support has to make the reasoning visible to the leader before anyone can pass it on.