



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]
