Protocol
Fairness Evaluation in Context
Conduct a contextual fairness audit of a documented synthetic or public-data decision task. Technical metric improvement alone is insufficient to justify use.
45–75 active hours60–90 min sessionsAdvanced
Mastery contract
Specialization · Standard 1.0 · Conduct a contextual fairness audit of a documented synthetic or public-data decision task. Technical metric improvement alone is insufficient to justify use.
Loading your learning records…
Reasoning — not yet passed
The metric calculations are correct and the conflict example identifies the social choices hidden in the criterion.
Reliable implementation — not yet passed
Subgroup counts and uncertainty are visible; empty or small groups are not silently omitted.
Reproducible experiment — not yet passed
Compare a declared reference policy and alternatives on identical held-out data; retain subgroup counts, uncertainty, utility and competing harms, including small-group limitations.
Defense and handoff — not yet passed
Write a model-use recommendation with stakeholder questions, measurement limitations and conditions for declining deployment.
All four criteria must pass. Activity completion does not satisfy them.
An independent reviewer reruns your work and varies something you did not rehearse: a fresh input, a different working directory, or a declared edge case.
Pilot decisions are provisional, not external credentials. For an appeal or sensitive artifact, contact your designated pilot operator with the submission ID. Export your assessment history.
What you will do
6 total
Compute demographic parity, equalized odds and predictive values for 2 groups; construct a base-rate example where criteria conflict.
Implement a subgroup evaluation report with confusion counts, missing-group handling and uncertainty; test the calculations on a hand-built fixture.
Compare 2 threshold policies using a frozen validation/evaluation split; report tradeoffs in errors, utility and group criteria without reducing them to one score.
Debug a proxy variable for protected status and a fairness conclusion drawn from a tiny group without uncertainty.
Write a 500–900 word technical report linking the reasoning, code, measurements, and limitations; include the project decision below.
Assess all 4 mastery criteria against saved artifacts, request an independent review, and repeat each failed criterion on a fresh example.
Essentials
A reading session alone never satisfies a mastery criterion.
Store source references, assumptions, and artifact paths beside every result.
Keep an untouched check case that differs from the worked example.
Record all attempts, including failures and results that contradict your prediction.
Use the stated comparison conditions; document every deviation before drawing a conclusion.
Protocol guardrails
Do
- +State the expected result before running the comparison.
- +Keep one minimal reproducible failing case when debugging.
- +Record environment versions and the exact command used.
- +Compare explanations with saved intermediate values.
- +Ask a reviewer to challenge the weakest assumption.
Don't
- ×Do not copy a worked solution and present it as an independent implementation.
- ×Do not tune against held-out evaluation outcomes.
- ×Do not report only the best seed or discard inconvenient runs.
- ×Do not equate elapsed hours or a completed run with a passed assessment.
- ×Do not conceal reduced-scale experiments behind claims about the original full-scale result.
Protocol authorship
Written by NuthinButta as instructional design. The teaching sources are the official references linked in each milestone; the exercises, workload and pass thresholds are ours, not their authors'.