Explainable AI Decision Reasoning for Enterprise
Teams needing AI decisions to be understandable to humans — for ECOA, FCRA, GDPR, and internal accountability requirements.
Le problème
Corules decisions are inherently explainable because they are produced by deterministic CEL expressions, not model weights. When a decision is BLOCKED, the response includes the specific rule that failed and the exact values that caused the failure. A credit denial says: 'DTI ratio 52% exceeded maximum of 43%.' Not: 'model score below threshold.' This satisfies ECOA adverse action requirements, GDPR right-to-explanation requirements, and internal accountability needs simultaneously.
Comment Corules le résout
Corules's policy runtime evaluates structured context against compiled CEL expressions — returning ALLOW, BLOCK, or ESCALATE with a reason and audit ID.
Exemple de politique
// Every BLOCK response includes human-readable violation:
{
"outcome": "BLOCK",
"violations": [
{
"rule": "dti_ratio <= params.max_dti",
"actual": 0.52,
"limit": 0.43,
"explanation": "Debt-to-income ratio 52% exceeds maximum of 43%."
}
],
"adverse_action_reasons": ["Debt-to-income ratio too high"]
}Frequently Asked Questions
Can the explanation language be customized for different audiences?
Yes. Internal explanations can include rule references and parameter values. Customer-facing explanations can be written in plain language, configured per use case.
Does this satisfy GDPR Article 22 right to explanation?
Corules provides the technical basis for explanation — specific factors, their values, and the policy rule. Legal review of how this maps to GDPR obligations in your jurisdiction is separate.