Bias Audit.

Status as of 2026-08-09

New York City Local Law 144 requires that any Automated Employment Decision Tool (AEDT) used to substantially assist or replace a hiring or promotion decision for a New York City role be independently bias-audited at least once every year, and that a summary of that audit be published publicly, with its date, before the tool is used on a candidate. This page is that public posting. It is dated, it is never edited after the fact, and it will say plainly if nothing has been published yet, because that is the truth right now.

Current status

No automated employment decision tool is active today. VEX Role Fit, the feature that would weigh a specific person against a specific role, seat, or deal, exists in code but sits behind a hard switch that only turns on when all three of the following are independently true:

A current, non-revoked bias audit for the tool is published on this page.
Every candidate the tool is used on has received notice at least 10 business days beforehand (see Candidate Notice).
The FCRA pre-adverse and adverse-action pathway is confirmed wired end to end, not just built.

As of the date above, none of the three is true, so the switch is off for every customer, with no exceptions, no pilot, no early access.

The audit log

No bias audits have been published yet.
When one is, it appears in a table here: tool, audit period, independent auditor, publication date, and a link to the full summary. A later audit or a correction is always a NEW dated entry. The one it replaces stays visible with its own date rather than being edited or removed, so this page cannot be quietly rewritten.

What an audit here will measure

When a real audit is published, it reports two numbers for each candidate category, computed by an independent auditor from actual hiring outcomes, following Local Law 144's method:

Selection rate: of everyone in a category who applied, what share was selected or advanced.
Impact ratio: that category's selection rate divided by the highest selection rate among the categories being compared. A ratio under 0.8 is the threshold the EEOC's four-fifths guidance and Local Law 144 both point to; the law does not set a pass or fail line, so the ratio is reported either way, not hidden if it is low.

Categories reported: sex (male, female), race and ethnicity (the seven EEOC categories: Hispanic or Latino; White; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; Asian; Native American or Alaska Native; two or more races), and the intersection of both where the sample allows it. A category smaller than 5 people or under 2% of the candidate pool is reported as suppressed in the impact-ratio table, per the law's own small-sample carve-out. Its raw candidate and selection counts are never suppressed, only the ratio.

Why nothing is published yet

A meaningful audit needs real historical hiring data, and Local Law 144's method is built to run against outcomes, not intentions. We will not run an audit against synthetic or placeholder data and publish it as if it were the real thing; that would be compliance theater, not compliance. The audit that appears here will be the independent auditor's summary of real, consented outcomes the first time the tool is used at a scale that produces them, or of a customer's own qualifying historical data if Local Law 144's permitted alternative applies.

The independent auditor

Local Law 144 requires the auditor be independent of the tool's development and deployment. None has been engaged yet, because there is nothing to audit yet. The auditor's name and the methodology they used will appear here alongside the first published summary.

Your rights

If a tool covered here is ever used on you, see Candidate Notice for the notice you receive, the 10-business-day timing rule, and your FCRA dispute and correction rights. Questions about this page or a specific audit: hello@noctaracorp.com.