Skip to content
Regulayer™Human Control for AI
Book a live demo

Research library · Law and regulation

Colorado's Draft Rules on Human Review of Automated Decisions

A reading of the Colorado Attorney General's proposed rules of 11 August 2026 under the ADMT Act and the Chatbot Safety Act: the human review standard in draft Rule 7.7, the record it asks deployers to keep, the two "Materially Influence" options put out for comment, and the comment and hearing dates. Read on 23 September 2026; status checked again on 2 October 2026.

Compiled from public sources, 23 September 2026. Information, not legal advice.

All research

Which text this reads

All quotations below are from the documents the Colorado Department of Law filed on 11 August 2026, which were still the only draft rule text published as of 2 October 2026:

The statutes

  • ADMT Act, SB 26-189. Signed 14 May 2026 (Colorado General Assembly, SB26-189). The Attorney General's page says it "repeals and reenacts" the provisions of the 2024 law, SB 24-205, and that "This new law and its provisions go into effect January 1, 2027" (coag.gov/ai).
  • Chatbot Safety Act, HB 26-1263. Its requirements apply from 1 January 2027 (Colorado General Assembly, HB26-1263; the Notice, section II).
  • The draft rules implement both acts and state: "These rules shall become effective January 1, 2027" (Rule 1.3, the draft rules).

Who the draft rules address

  • Developers of ADMT, including Midstream Developers that integrate covered ADMT into their own product and pass it on (Rules 4 and 5).
  • Deployers that use covered ADMT to "Materially Influence" a Consequential Decision (Rules 6 and 7).
  • Operators of Conversational Artificial Intelligence Services, under the Chatbot Safety Act (Rules 8 to 13).

Status of a revised draft

The Notice (section IV) says: "If there are changes made to the proposed rules prior to the hearing, the updated proposed rules will be provided to the Colorado Automated Decision-Making Technology and Chatbot Safety Law rulemaking mailing list and posted on the Department of Law's website by September 23, 2026." The commitment is conditional on there being changes (the Notice).

As of 23 September 2026, 20:04 UTC, the rulemaking page linked only the three 11 August documents. As of 2 October 2026 it still links only those documents and the June 2026 pre-rulemaking considerations paper, and no revised draft appears among the Attorney General's site uploads. The page was updated later on 23 September and now says comments received by 4 September will be "considered in a revised proposed rulemaking draft that will be circulated according to the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act and at least five days prior to the public hearing" (coag.gov/ai). A revised draft may still be circulated, or may reach the mailing list before the website.

1. Human review: who reviews, and when

Draft Rule 7.7, "Right to Meaningful Human Review and Reconsideration" (the draft rules).

Reviewer standards.

  • "A Meaningful Human Review must be conducted by an independent reviewer who did not make the original decision and who is not a subordinate of the original decision-maker, whenever feasible."
  • The reviewer must have "a level of subject matter understanding that is commensurate with the nature of, and negative consequences resulting from, the Adverse Outcome of the Consequential Decision being reviewed."
  • "To have meaningful authority to approve, modify, or override a Consequential Decision pursuant to section 6-1-1701(15), C.R.S., the reviewer must not be subject to steering by the upper management that would influence the reviewer's decision, and they must be shielded from potential retaliation."
  • "ADMT may not assist in the Meaningful Human Review."
  • "A 'Meaningful Human Review' is one that could change the Adverse Outcome of a Consequential Decision." And: "An override of the original decision that results in a full reversal of the original decision indicates that human review was meaningful."

Timing.

  • "Where possible, an Adverse Outcome must be stayed pending Meaningful Human Review."
  • "Within 10 days after receiving the request, A Deployer must confirm receipt of the request and provide information about how the Deployer will process the request."
  • "Meaningful Human Review must be completed, and a response must be provided to the Consumer within 45 days of receiving the request."

What triggers it. In the draft, review follows a consumer's request: "Consumers must be able to request Meaningful Human Review and reconsideration through the same mechanism by which they may request to exercise their other ADMT Consumer Rights." The right applies "to the extent commercially reasonable" (Rule 7.7, citing section 6-1-1705(1)(a)(II), C.R.S.).

The response. It "must include" the reviewer's decision to confirm or override, the type of review conducted, the factors considered, and the reasons. "Reasons provided must be specific to the evidence provided, and not a recitation of the ADMT's general logic."

2. The six-field record, and other documentation

The human review record (Rule 7.7, "Documentation"). "When a Meaningful Human Review is conducted, the Deployer must retain a record showing:"

  1. "The reviewer identity, authority, and relevant training;"
  2. "Review timestamps;"
  3. "Primary evidence available to the reviewer, including information provided by the Consumer;"
  4. "The reviewer's access to ADMTs intended use, limitations, inputs and principal factors;"
  5. "Whether the reviewer approved, modified, or overrode the output; and"
  6. "A written justification for the reviewer's decision to approve, modify, or override the output."

This is the only provision in the draft rule text that uses the words "retain a record" (the draft rules).

Other deployer duties in the draft.

  • Adverse Outcome disclosures go to the consumer in writing "via at least two methods provided that the Deployer has two methods of communicating with a Consumer" (Rule 6.2), and describe "the role the Covered ADMT played in the Consequential Decision along with the role of any human reviewer(s) and other ADMT or similar systems, if applicable" (Rule 6.4).
  • On a correction request, the deployer "shall implement and maintain reasonable data security measures, consistent with section 6-1-1308, C.R.S. and 4 CCR 904-3, Rule 6.9, in Processing documentation relating to the Consumer's correction request" (Rule 7.4).
  • If a deployer decides not to act on a consumer rights request, its response "must include the grounds for denial" (Rule 7.6).

Developer duties (Rule 5). Developer disclosures "must be written in a way that provides Deployers with a meaningful understanding and accurate expectations of the ADMT's known limitations, known risks, and circumstances under which the ADMT should not be used." Developers describe the Consequential Decisions the ADMT is and is not intended for; give "instructions for the Deployer's appropriate use, monitoring, and Meaningful Human Review where applicable"; and describe training data categories, including whether the data would be Sensitive Data, Biometric Identifiers or Biometric Data. Under Rule 5.3 a developer may withhold only trade secrets or legally protected information, "must provide the legal authority for withholding the information", and must still provide information sufficient to satisfy the statute without revealing trade secrets.

Multiparty arrangements (Rule 4.2). A Midstream Developer must "Reasonably obtain all Developer documentation created pursuant to section 6-1-1704, C.R.S." from the developer of any covered ADMT it uses as a component, and "Make all upstream Developer documentation available to any downstream Deployer or Developer."

Impact assessments. The draft rule text contains no impact assessment or risk management program duty. The 2024 law, SB 24-205, had required deployers to implement "a risk management policy and program" and complete "an impact assessment" (Colorado General Assembly, SB24-205).

Chatbot operators (Rule 13). Operators file an Annual Report, the first "on or before July 1, 2027, covering calendar year 2027". "The Department may request that an Operator produce underlying documentation, source materials, records, or a demonstration sufficient to verify any element of the submission. The Operator must comply within 30 days." (the draft rules)

3. "Materially Influence": two options out for comment

These standards are not in the draft rule text. The Notice sets out two options and asks which to adopt (the Notice, section II, "Material Influence").

Under both options, an ADMT output is presumed to Materially Influence a Consequential Decision "if it constrains an option set, sets a threshold, or produces a rank, score, classification, recommendation, prediction, or other inference that: (a) pertains to the individual about whom the decision is being made; (b) is reviewed by the decision-maker, or is used to screen data made available to the decision-maker, before or during the decision-making process; and (c) is consistent with the outcome of the Consequential Decision."

Standard 1. The presumption "may be rebutted by evidence that the output was a De-Minimis Factor, or was not consulted, considered in, or incorporated into the Consequential Decision." Examples of relevant evidence include that "The decision maker recorded an independent judgment before the ADMT output was made available to the decision-maker", that "The decision maker did not view the ADMT output", or that "The decision maker made a decision that was not consistent with the ADMT output".

Standard 2. A factor "may be a De Minimis Factor if other relevant factors independent of the ADMT output played a significantly larger role in the Consequential Decision." Rebuttal evidence may show an independent review of substantial other information, an outcome consistent with it, and a decision maker with the authority and subject matter understanding to decide on that basis.

The earlier rulemaking under SB 24-205 was overtaken when SB 26-189 repealed and reenacted the provisions in May 2026. Before 11 August the page published a June 2026 considerations paper that posed questions; it was not draft rule text.

4. Comments and hearing

From the Notice and coag.gov/ai, as of 2 October 2026.

  • Comment period: 11 August 2026 to 26 October 2026. "All written comments must be received on or before October 26, 2026, at 11:59 PM MT", or, if the hearing continues beyond 26 October, by 11:59 PM MT on its last day.
  • Earlier date: comments submitted by 4 September 2026 were to be considered for any revisions presented at the hearing.
  • Where: the rulemaking comment portal. Written comments are posted online and added to the official rulemaking record, "which is public information".
  • Hearing: Monday 26 October 2026, 10:00 AM, at 1300 Broadway, Room 1D, Denver, and by video conference (registration). Accommodation requests to ai@coag.gov at least two weeks before.
  • Cost-benefit analysis: under section 24-4-103(2.5), C.R.S., "anyone can request a cost-benefit analysis on proposed rules within five days of publication in the Colorado Register" (coag.gov/ai).
  • The Notice adds that the proposed rules "are subject to further changes and modifications after the public hearing and the deadline for the submission of written comments."

Sources

  • Colorado Department of Law, rulemaking page: https://coag.gov/ai/ (read 23 September and 2 October 2026)
  • Proposed rules, 4 CCR 904-6, 11 August 2026: https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2026/08/2026.08.11-ADMT-Chatbot-Act-Rulemaking.docx
  • Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 August 2026: https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2026/08/2026.08.11-Notice-of-Hearing.docx
  • Statement of Basis and Purpose, 11 August 2026: https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2026/08/2026.08.11-Statement-of-Basis-and-Purpose-ADMT-Chatbot-Safety-Act-Rules.docx
  • ADMT-Chatbot Pre-Rulemaking Considerations Document, June 2026: https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2026/06/ADMT-Chatbot-Pre-Rulemaking-Considerations-Document.pdf
  • Colorado Secretary of State, eDocket 2026-00360: https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/eDocketDetails.do?trackingNum=2026-00360
  • Colorado General Assembly, SB26-189: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb26-189
  • Colorado General Assembly, HB26-1263: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb26-1263
  • Colorado General Assembly, SB24-205: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-205
All researchThe Consequence Library