Make AI Risk Scores Explainable Before Approval DecisionsMake AI Risk Scores Explainable Before Approval Decisions
The network for creativity
Join 1.25M professional creatives like you
Connect with clients, get discovered, and run your business 100% commission-free
Creatives on Contra have earned over $150M and we are just getting started
An AI risk metric/score of 87 tells an approver almost nothing.
It says the model is worried. It doesn't say why, how fresh the number is, or whether the data behind it was complete. If the pipeline failed 17 times this month, the 87 looks exactly the same.
That's a design problem, not a model problem. The fix is mostly disclosure: say where the number came from, show the signals behind it, put partial runs on the decision screen, and let the approver re-run it before signing off on $248,600.
The person clicking Approve owns the decision. The interface owes them the evidence.
Post image
Noel Dario's avatar
This is the core issue with single-number risk scores: a stale or pipeline-broken 87 looks identical to a healthy 87. Approvers need provenance, not just anxiety.
Asif's avatar
Chris, this is spot on. On a payments agent we built, approvers only started trusting the flags once each one showed the reason behind it and when it last ran. A bare number just made people click Approve faster, which is the opposite of what you want.
Back to feed
The network for creativity
Join 1.25M professional creatives like you
Connect with clients, get discovered, and run your business 100% commission-free
Creatives on Contra have earned over $150M and we are just getting started