Initial commit

2025-11-30 08:38:26 +08:00
commit 41d9f6b189
304 changed files with 98322 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/skills/ethics-safety-impact/resources/template.md
+++ b/skills/ethics-safety-impact/resources/template.md
@@ -0,0 +1,398 @@
+# Ethics, Safety & Impact Assessment Templates
+
+Quick-start templates for stakeholder mapping, harm/benefit analysis, fairness evaluation, risk prioritization, mitigation planning, and monitoring.
+
+## Workflow
+
+```
+Ethics & Safety Assessment Progress:
+- [ ] Step 1: Map stakeholders and identify vulnerable groups
+- [ ] Step 2: Analyze potential harms and benefits
+- [ ] Step 3: Assess fairness and differential impacts
+- [ ] Step 4: Evaluate severity and likelihood
+- [ ] Step 5: Design mitigations and safeguards
+- [ ] Step 6: Define monitoring and escalation protocols
+```
+
+**Step 1: Map stakeholders and identify vulnerable groups**
+
+Use [Stakeholder Mapping Template](#stakeholder-mapping-template) to identify all affected parties and prioritize vulnerable populations.
+
+**Step 2: Analyze potential harms and benefits**
+
+Brainstorm harms and benefits for each stakeholder group using [Harm/Benefit Analysis Template](#harmbenefit-analysis-template).
+
+**Step 3: Assess fairness and differential impacts**
+
+Evaluate outcome, treatment, and access disparities using [Fairness Assessment Template](#fairness-assessment-template).
+
+**Step 4: Evaluate severity and likelihood**
+
+Prioritize risks using [Risk Matrix Template](#risk-matrix-template) scoring severity and likelihood.
+
+**Step 5: Design mitigations and safeguards**
+
+Plan interventions using [Mitigation Planning Template](#mitigation-planning-template) for high-priority harms.
+
+**Step 6: Define monitoring and escalation protocols**
+
+Set up ongoing oversight using [Monitoring Framework Template](#monitoring-framework-template).
+
+---
+
+## Stakeholder Mapping Template
+
+### Primary Stakeholders (directly affected)
+
+**Group 1**: [Name of stakeholder group]
+- **Size/reach**: [How many people?]
+- **Relationship**: [How do they interact with feature/decision?]
+- **Power/voice**: [Can they advocate for themselves? High/Medium/Low]
+- **Vulnerability factors**: [Age, disability, marginalization, economic precarity, etc.]
+- **Priority**: [High/Medium/Low risk]
+
+**Group 2**: [Name of stakeholder group]
+- **Size/reach**:
+- **Relationship**:
+- **Power/voice**:
+- **Vulnerability factors**:
+- **Priority**:
+
+[Add more groups as needed]
+
+### Secondary Stakeholders (indirectly affected)
+
+**Group**: [Name]
+- **How affected**: [Indirect impact mechanism]
+- **Priority**: [High/Medium/Low risk]
+
+### Societal/Systemic Impacts
+
+- **Norms affected**: [What behaviors/expectations might shift?]
+- **Precedents set**: [What does this enable or legitimize for future?]
+- **Long-term effects**: [Cumulative, feedback loops, structural changes]
+
+### Vulnerable Groups Prioritization
+
+Check all that apply and note specific considerations:
+
+- [ ] **Children** (<18): Special protections needed (consent, safety, development impact)
+- [ ] **Elderly** (>65): Accessibility, digital literacy, vulnerability to fraud
+- [ ] **People with disabilities**: Accessibility compliance, exclusion risk, safety
+- [ ] **Racial/ethnic minorities**: Historical discrimination, disparate impact, cultural sensitivity
+- [ ] **Low-income**: Economic harm, access barriers, inability to absorb costs
+- [ ] **LGBTQ+**: Safety in hostile contexts, privacy, outing risk
+- [ ] **Non-English speakers**: Language barriers, exclusion, misunderstanding
+- [ ] **Politically targeted**: Dissidents, journalists, activists (surveillance, safety)
+- [ ] **Other**: [Specify]
+
+**Highest priority groups** (most vulnerable + highest risk):
+1.
+2.
+3.
+
+---
+
+## Harm/Benefit Analysis Template
+
+For each stakeholder group, identify potential harms and benefits.
+
+### Stakeholder Group: [Name]
+
+#### Potential Benefits
+
+**Benefit 1**: [Description]
+- **Type**: Economic, Social, Health, Autonomy, Access, Safety, etc.
+- **Magnitude**: [High/Medium/Low]
+- **Distribution**: [Who gets this benefit? Everyone or subset?]
+- **Timeline**: [Immediate, Short-term <1yr, Long-term >1yr]
+
+**Benefit 2**: [Description]
+- **Type**:
+- **Magnitude**:
+- **Distribution**:
+- **Timeline**:
+
+#### Potential Harms
+
+**Harm 1**: [Description]
+- **Type**: Physical, Psychological, Economic, Social, Autonomy, Privacy, Reputational, Epistemic, Political
+- **Mechanism**: [How does harm occur?]
+- **Affected subgroup**: [Everyone or specific subset within stakeholder group?]
+- **Severity**: [1-5, where 5 = catastrophic]
+- **Likelihood**: [1-5, where 5 = very likely]
+- **Risk Score**: [Severity × Likelihood]
+
+**Harm 2**: [Description]
+- **Type**:
+- **Mechanism**:
+- **Affected subgroup**:
+- **Severity**:
+- **Likelihood**:
+- **Risk Score**:
+
+**Harm 3**: [Description]
+- **Type**:
+- **Mechanism**:
+- **Affected subgroup**:
+- **Severity**:
+- **Likelihood**:
+- **Risk Score**:
+
+#### Second-Order Effects
+
+- **Feedback loops**: [Does harm create conditions for more harm?]
+- **Accumulation**: [Do small harms compound over time?]
+- **Normalization**: [Does this normalize harmful practices?]
+- **Precedent**: [What does this enable others to do?]
+
+---
+
+## Fairness Assessment Template
+
+### Outcome Fairness (results)
+
+**Metric being measured**: [e.g., approval rate, error rate, recommendation quality]
+
+**By group**:
+
+| Group | Metric Value | Difference from Average | Disparate Impact Ratio |
+|-------|--------------|-------------------------|------------------------|
+| Group A | | | |
+| Group B | | | |
+| Group C | | | |
+| Overall | | - | - |
+
+**Disparate Impact Ratio** = (Outcome rate for protected group) / (Outcome rate for reference group)
+- **> 0.8**: Generally acceptable (80% rule)
+- **< 0.8**: Potential disparate impact, investigate
+
+**Questions**:
+- [ ] Are outcome rates similar across groups (within 20%)?
+- [ ] If not, is there a legitimate justification?
+- [ ] Do error rates (false positives/negatives) differ across groups?
+- [ ] Who bears the burden of errors?
+
+### Treatment Fairness (process)
+
+**How decisions are made**: [Algorithm, human judgment, hybrid]
+
+**By group**:
+
+| Group | Treatment Description | Dignity/Respect | Transparency | Recourse |
+|-------|----------------------|-----------------|--------------|----------|
+| Group A | | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low |
+| Group B | | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low |
+
+**Questions**:
+- [ ] Do all groups receive same quality of service/interaction?
+- [ ] Are decisions explained equally well to all groups?
+- [ ] Do all groups have equal access to appeals/recourse?
+- [ ] Are there cultural or language barriers affecting treatment?
+
+### Access Fairness (opportunity)
+
+**Barriers to access**:
+
+| Barrier Type | Description | Affected Groups | Severity |
+|--------------|-------------|-----------------|----------|
+| Economic | [e.g., cost, credit required] | | High/Med/Low |
+| Technical | [e.g., device, internet, literacy] | | High/Med/Low |
+| Geographic | [e.g., location restrictions] | | High/Med/Low |
+| Physical | [e.g., accessibility, disability] | | High/Med/Low |
+| Social | [e.g., stigma, discrimination] | | High/Med/Low |
+| Legal | [e.g., documentation required] | | High/Med/Low |
+
+**Questions**:
+- [ ] Can all groups access the service/benefit equally?
+- [ ] Are there unnecessary barriers that could be removed?
+- [ ] Do barriers disproportionately affect vulnerable groups?
+
+### Intersectionality Check
+
+**Combinations of identities that may face unique harms**:
+- Example: Black women (face both racial and gender bias)
+- Example: Elderly immigrants (language + digital literacy + age)
+
+Groups to check:
+- [ ] Intersection of race and gender
+- [ ] Intersection of disability and age
+- [ ] Intersection of income and language
+- [ ] Other combinations: [Specify]
+
+---
+
+## Risk Matrix Template
+
+Score each harm on Severity (1-5) and Likelihood (1-5). Prioritize high-risk (red/orange) harms for mitigation.
+
+### Severity Scale
+
+- **5 - Catastrophic**: Death, serious injury, irreversible harm, widespread impact
+- **4 - Major**: Significant harm, lasting impact, affects many people
+- **3 - Moderate**: Noticeable harm, temporary impact, affects some people
+- **2 - Minor**: Small harm, easily reversed, affects few people
+- **1 - Negligible**: Minimal harm, no lasting impact
+
+### Likelihood Scale
+
+- **5 - Very Likely**: >75% chance, expected to occur
+- **4 - Likely**: 50-75% chance, probable
+- **3 - Possible**: 25-50% chance, could happen
+- **2 - Unlikely**: 5-25% chance, improbable
+- **1 - Rare**: <5% chance, very unlikely
+
+### Risk Matrix
+
+| Harm | Stakeholder Group | Severity | Likelihood | Risk Score | Priority |
+|------|------------------|----------|------------|------------|----------|
+| [Harm 1 description] | [Group] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [S×L] | [Color] |
+| [Harm 2 description] | [Group] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [S×L] | [Color] |
+| [Harm 3 description] | [Group] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [S×L] | [Color] |
+
+**Priority Color Coding**:
+- **Red** (Risk ≥15): Critical, must address before launch
+- **Orange** (Risk 9-14): High priority, address soon
+- **Yellow** (Risk 5-8): Monitor, mitigate if feasible
+- **Green** (Risk ≤4): Low priority, document and monitor
+
+**Prioritized Harms** (Red + Orange):
+1. [Highest risk harm]
+2. [Second highest]
+3. [Third highest]
+
+---
+
+## Mitigation Planning Template
+
+For each high-priority harm, design interventions.
+
+### Harm: [Description of harm being mitigated]
+
+**Affected Group**: [Who experiences this harm]
+
+**Risk Score**: [Severity × Likelihood = X]
+
+#### Mitigation Strategies
+
+**Option 1: [Mitigation name]**
+- **Type**: Prevent, Reduce, Detect, Respond, Safeguard, Transparency, Empower
+- **Description**: [What is the intervention?]
+- **Effectiveness**: [How much does this reduce risk? High/Medium/Low]
+- **Cost/effort**: [Resources required? High/Medium/Low]
+- **Tradeoffs**: [What are downsides or tensions?]
+- **Owner**: [Who is responsible for implementation?]
+- **Timeline**: [By when?]
+
+**Option 2: [Mitigation name]**
+- **Type**:
+- **Description**:
+- **Effectiveness**:
+- **Cost/effort**:
+- **Tradeoffs**:
+- **Owner**:
+- **Timeline**:
+
+**Recommended Approach**: [Which option(s) to pursue and why]
+
+#### Residual Risk
+
+After mitigation:
+- **New severity**: [1-5]
+- **New likelihood**: [1-5]
+- **New risk score**: [S×L]
+
+**Acceptable?**
+- [ ] Yes, residual risk is acceptable given tradeoffs
+- [ ] No, need additional mitigations
+- [ ] Escalate to [ethics committee/leadership/etc.]
+
+#### Implementation Checklist
+
+- [ ] Design changes specified
+- [ ] Testing plan includes affected groups
+- [ ] Documentation updated (policies, help docs, disclosures)
+- [ ] Training provided (if human review/moderation involved)
+- [ ] Monitoring metrics defined (see next template)
+- [ ] Review date scheduled (when to reassess)
+
+---
+
+## Monitoring Framework Template
+
+### Outcome Metrics
+
+Track actual impacts post-launch to detect harms early.
+
+**Metric 1**: [Metric name, e.g., "Approval rate parity"]
+- **Definition**: [Precisely what is measured]
+- **Measurement method**: [How calculated, from what data]
+- **Baseline**: [Current or expected value]
+- **Target**: [Goal value]
+- **Threshold for concern**: [Value that triggers action]
+- **Disaggregation**: [Break down by race, gender, age, disability, etc.]
+- **Frequency**: [Daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly]
+- **Owner**: [Who tracks and reports this]
+
+**Metric 2**: [Metric name]
+- Definition, method, baseline, target, threshold, disaggregation, frequency, owner
+
+**Metric 3**: [Metric name]
+- Definition, method, baseline, target, threshold, disaggregation, frequency, owner
+
+### Leading Indicators & Qualitative Monitoring
+
+- **Indicator 1**: [e.g., "User reports spike"] - Threshold: [level]
+- **Indicator 2**: [e.g., "Declining engagement Group Y"] - Threshold: [level]
+- **User feedback**: Channels for reporting concerns
+- **Community listening**: Forums, social media, support tickets
+- **Affected group outreach**: Check-ins with vulnerable communities
+
+### Escalation Protocol
+
+**Yellow Alert** (early warning):
+- **Trigger**: [e.g., Metric exceeds threshold by 10-20%]
+- **Response**: Investigate, analyze patterns, prepare report
+
+**Orange Alert** (concerning):
+- **Trigger**: [e.g., Metric exceeds threshold by >20%, or multiple yellow alerts]
+- **Response**: Escalate to product/ethics team, begin mitigation planning
+
+**Red Alert** (critical):
+- **Trigger**: [e.g., Serious harm reported, disparate impact >20%, safety incident]
+- **Response**: Escalate to leadership, pause rollout or rollback, immediate remediation
+
+**Escalation Path**:
+1. First escalation: [Role/person]
+2. If unresolved or critical: [Role/person]
+3. Final escalation: [Ethics committee, CEO, board]
+
+### Review Cadence
+
+- **Daily**: Critical safety metrics (safety-critical systems only)
+- **Weekly**: User complaints, support tickets
+- **Monthly**: Outcome metrics, disparate impact dashboard
+- **Quarterly**: Comprehensive fairness audit
+- **Annually**: External audit, stakeholder consultation
+
+### Audit & Accountability
+
+- **Audits**: Internal (who, frequency), external (independent, when)
+- **Transparency**: What disclosed, where published
+- **Affected group consultation**: How vulnerable groups involved in oversight
+
+---
+
+## Complete Assessment Template
+
+Full documentation structure combines all above templates:
+
+1. **Context**: Feature/decision description, problem, alternatives
+2. **Stakeholder Analysis**: Use Stakeholder Mapping Template
+3. **Harm & Benefit Analysis**: Use Harm/Benefit Analysis Template for each group
+4. **Fairness Assessment**: Use Fairness Assessment Template (outcome/treatment/access)
+5. **Risk Prioritization**: Use Risk Matrix Template, identify critical harms
+6. **Mitigation Plan**: Use Mitigation Planning Template for each critical harm
+7. **Monitoring & Escalation**: Use Monitoring Framework Template
+8. **Decision**: Proceed/staged rollout/delay/reject with rationale and sign-off
+9. **Post-Launch Review**: 30-day, 90-day checks, ongoing monitoring, updates