AI0-001 AI Governance and Ethics Practice Question

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

• ✓

  Require a human to review and approve every loan decision before it becomes final

  Why this is correct

  Requiring a human to review and approve every loan decision before it becomes final ensures meaningful human oversight, satisfying the EU AI Act's high-risk requirement. Human-in-the-loop approval prevents fully automated decisions, unlike post-hoc monitoring or logging alone.

• ✗

  Use a separate AI model to audit the primary AI's decisions weekly

  Why it's wrong here

  Auditing by another model replaces one automated decision with two, leaving no human in the loop, which the EU AI Act's oversight requirement demands. Model-based auditing suits ongoing quality assurance and drift detection, not the human review of individual high-risk decisions.

• ✗

  Allow applicants to appeal AI decisions through a customer service process

  Why it's wrong here

  Appeals occur after an adverse decision, so they provide redress rather than oversight of the decision itself; the EU AI Act requires human oversight during operation, such as a human reviewing or overriding outputs before they take effect. Appeals suit post-hoc dispute resolution, not real-time control of a high-risk system.

• ✗

  Provide a dashboard showing the AI's confidence score for each application

  Why it's wrong here

  A confidence score display leaves the reviewer as a passive observer; the AI still decides, so no human can genuinely intervene. Dashboards suit monitoring model performance over time, whereas oversight requires a person to review evidence and authorise or override each decision.