The position, stated plainly
Article 22 of the GDPR restricts solely automated decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects on a data subject. humaniser.eu returns a verdict — human, AI, or manual review — together with a signed receipt identifying the model, the calibration card, and the per-sentence rationale. The verdict is intended as input to a human reviewer's decision. It is not the decision.
Customers integrating the API into a workflow that produces a legal or similarly significant effect — disciplinary panel, hiring rejection, retraction, refusal to publish — are responsible for the human-review step. The receipt is built to be the artefact that human reviewer reads. Critics dispute whether decision-aid framing is sufficient under Article 22 when the receiver in practice rubber-stamps the verdict; they are not entirely wrong, which is why the receipt itself surfaces the abstain band and the false-positive rate rather than a single number.
Right to explanation
Data subjects who receive an adverse decision in which a humaniser.eu verdict was used as decision-aid have the right to a meaningful explanation. The signed receipt, plus the published calibration card referenced by SHA in the receipt, plus the per-sentence rationale, are designed to constitute that explanation. The operator — the customer running the workflow — is the controller responsible for furnishing it.
Contact
Data subjects, regulators, and DPOs may contact info@humaniser.eu for receipt verification, model-SHA confirmation, or calibration-card reproduction questions.