Claim LD06-SL-C26 (v1.0)
In a 2022 field scan of algorithmic auditors (survey of 152 and 10 interviews), only 7% said their audit process used a standardized framework, 80% had recommended changes to AI systems that were not implemented, and half of third-party auditors reported lacking access, against none of the first-party auditors.
Research opportunities this claim motivates
What this claim leaves open for research. Each is a hypothesis about a gap, not a finding.
- How is external evaluation under the EU AI Code of Practice carried out?In a 2022 field scan, half of third-party auditors reported lacking access.
Provenance and status
- Claim type
- ESTIMATE (as printed: “ESTIMATE”)
- Publication status
- ELIGIBLE (VINTAGE) (as printed: “ELIGIBLE WITH VINTAGE QUALIFIER”)
- Verification state
- CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY (as printed: “CONTENT VERIFIED”; verified by: UNKNOWN)
- Does not license
- Current practice for frontier-model evaluation, which postdates the scan
- Source (field 6, as printed)
- Costanza-Chock, Harvey, Raji, Czernuszenko & Buolamwini, “Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem,” FAccT 2022, arXiv:2310.02521
- Source type (field 7)
- PEER_REVIEWED_CONFERENCE_PAPER (as printed: “Peer-reviewed conference paper”)
- Institutional position
- Not checked
- Maturity (claim evidence / publication maturity)
- EMERGING (as printed: “EMERGING”)
- Recorded date
- 2026-10-15
- Currentness / correction
- This is the current version. No correction or concern relation is recorded on its Sources.
Version
Current version v1.0, resolved through the explicit current pointer CLAIM--LD06-SL-C26.
Pinned Sources (field 6, version-specific)
- “Costanza-Chock, Harvey, Raji, Czernuszenko & Buolamwini, “Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem,” FAccT 2022, arXiv:2310.02521” → SRC-SL-COSTANZA-CHOCK-ET-AL-FACCT-2022--v1.0 — Costanza-Chock, Harvey, Raji, Czernuszenko & Buolamwini, “Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem,” FAccT 2022, arXiv:2310.02521; class PEER_REVIEWED_CONFERENCE_PAPER (explicit public provenance pin)
All 25 canonical Claim fields (raw values and normalized values)
| # | Canonical field | Canonical value (verbatim) | Normalized (Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CLAIM ID | LD06-SL-C26 | — |
| 2 | PUBLIC-FACING CLAIM | In a 2022 field scan of algorithmic auditors (survey of 152 and 10 interviews), only 7% said their audit process used a standardized framework, 80% had recommended changes to AI systems that were not implemented, and half of third-party auditors reported lacking access, against none of the first-party auditors. | — |
| 3 | CLAIM TYPE | ESTIMATE | base_types: ESTIMATE |
| 4 | RESEARCH STRAND | C — Evaluation in governance, audits and red-teaming | — |
| 5 | MATURITY | EMERGING | states: EMERGING |
| 6 | SOURCE | Costanza-Chock, Harvey, Raji, Czernuszenko & Buolamwini, “Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem,” FAccT 2022, arXiv:2310.02521 | source_ids: SRC-SL-COSTANZA-CHOCK-ET-AL-FACCT-2022 |
| 7 | SOURCE TYPE | Peer-reviewed conference paper | classes: PEER_REVIEWED_CONFERENCE_PAPER |
| 8 | INSTITUTIONAL POSITION | Not checked | — |
| 9 | SCOPE | The algorithmic auditing field, 2021–2022 | — |
| 10 | DESIGN | Field scan: catalogue of auditors, anonymous survey and interviews | — |
| 11 | SAMPLE / DATASET | 438 individuals and 189 organizations catalogued; 152 survey respondents; 10 interviews | — |
| 12 | MODEL / TOOL / VERSION | Not applicable | — |
| 13 | COMPARATOR | First-, second- and third-party auditors | — |
| 14 | MAIN RESULT | 7% standardized framework; 80% recommendations not implemented; 65% say auditees will not commit to fix problems; access lacking for 58% of second-party and 50% of third-party auditors; 75% call audit regulation not or barely present; 95% favour mandated audits | — |
| 15 | INFERENTIAL TARGET | Whether audits produce accountability | — |
| 16 | DOES NOT LICENSE | Current practice for frontier-model evaluation, which postdates the scan | — |
| 17 | VERIFICATION STATE | CONTENT VERIFIED | state: CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY · verified_by: UNKNOWN |
| 18 | LIMITATIONS | Self-selected respondents; before generative AI and the EU code; only 56 of the 152 respondents had worked on an audit (12 first-, 16 second- and 11 third-party; roles could overlap), so the access figures describe a handful of people (the third-party figure rests on 11 auditors) | — |
| 19 | CONTRADICTORY / SUPPORTING SOURCES | Consistent with LD06-SL-C28 | — |
| 20 | GEOGRAPHY / LANGUAGE | Not checked / English | — |
| 21 | DISTRIBUTIONAL LEDGER | Not analysed in this claim | — |
| 22 | R01 / FIELD-MAP LINKS | LD-06, D4b | — |
| 23 | WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS CLAIM? | A repeat scan under mandated audit regimes | — |
| 24 | PUBLICATION STATUS | ELIGIBLE WITH VINTAGE QUALIFIER | state: ELIGIBLE · qualifiers: VINTAGE |
| 25 | RECORDED DATE | 2026-10-15 | — |
Field 22 references resolved against Field Map v0.2: LD-06 (LIVING_DEBATE); D4b (SUB_AREA)
Cited by Living Debate versions
Research-of-record provenance
Materialized by sociolens-materializer 0.6.0 at 2026-09-28T20:00:00.000Z; normalization contract SocioLens — Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2 — Pre-Spike Materialization Contract (v1.0.2). Content seal SHA-256 217afc1b1553c203d86378876ca2591ca6da18f943f27142d2fa26114bea006e.
Repository-authored inputs (not Drive exports)
- SocioLens claim — LD06-SL-C26 v1.0 (v1.0) — written in the SocioLens repository by Project Lead (Claude, AI) on 2026-10-15; no Drive identity exists. Authority: AGENTS.md "Authority" (the Project Lead decides research content within the research-integrity rules) and the Owner's choice in the SocioLens project chat on 15 October 2026 to build the LD-06 debate; a new Claim, first version, written from the project's LD-06 source notes, checked against full texts or official abstracts. Block “ENTRY 26 — LD06-SL-C26” SHA-256
740e17f1d5332e0c8f9951b9db7c7ba68b93e7ccf022254147de79f20c49d69b; fixturefixtures/authored/claims/LD06-SL-C26--v1.0.
Builder decisions (not Drive data)
- VERSION = v1.0 — basis: Claim version taken from the repository-authored claim fixture version (SocioLens claim — LD06-SL-C26 v1.0); the first version of a new Claim of the LD-06 debate
- CURRENT_POINTER = true — basis: repository-authored claim "SocioLens claim — LD06-SL-C26 v1.0" (Project Lead (Claude, AI), 2026-10-15); basis: AGENTS.md "Authority" (the Project Lead decides research content within the research-integrity rules) and the Owner's choice in the SocioLens project chat on 15 October 2026 to build the LD-06 debate; a new Claim, first version, written from the project's LD-06 source notes, checked against full texts or official abstracts
- FIELD_6_SOURCE_REFERENCE = SRC-SL-COSTANZA-CHOCK-ET-AL-FACCT-2022--v1.0 — basis: field 6 of ENTRY 26 — LD06-SL-C26 cites "Costanza-Chock, Harvey, Raji, Czernuszenko & Buolamwini, “Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem,” FAccT 2022, arXiv:2310.02521"; the only field-6 segment of this ClaimVersion's repository-authored ledger block.
- SOURCE_PROVENANCE_PIN = SRC-SL-COSTANZA-CHOCK-ET-AL-FACCT-2022--v1.0 — basis: explicit version-pinned public provenance of this ClaimVersion (Amendment v1.2 §6): the pinned field-6 Source record "Costanza-Chock, Harvey, Raji, Czernuszenko & Buolamwini, “Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem,” FAccT 2022, arXiv:2310.02521".