gh-lyndonkl-claude/skills/ethics-safety-impact/resources/template.md

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 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.

Step 3: Assess fairness and differential impacts

Evaluate outcome, treatment, and access disparities using Fairness Assessment Template.

Step 4: Evaluate severity and likelihood

Prioritize risks using Risk Matrix Template scoring severity and likelihood.

Step 5: Design mitigations and safeguards

Plan interventions using Mitigation Planning Template for high-priority harms.

Step 6: Define monitoring and escalation protocols

Set up ongoing oversight using 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