OOF-AII-251842
St George's Hospital Medical School allegedly Automated Admissions with Discriminatory Results
From 1982 to 1986, St George's Hospital Medical School used a program to automate a portion of their admissions process that allegedly discriminated against women and members of ethnic minorities.
- Event date
- 1998-03-05
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Severity
- Moderate
- Evidence state
- Single-source
Assessment status
Generated from available public incident evidence using OOF® governance methodology. It is not an official investigation, legal determination, regulatory finding, certification, or OOF® Approved Assessment.
View source record from AI Incident Database (Responsible AI Collaborative)
Assessment confidence dimensions
- Source corroboration
- Single-source
- Extraction completeness
- High
- Methodological assignment confidence
- Limited
Measures source-group corroboration only; it does not establish factual truth.
Measures populated source fields after deterministic normalization; it does not measure correctness.
Measures automated assignment support; substantive correctness requires authorized human review.
Known facts from the incident record
- The incident record identifies the event date as 1998-03-05.
- The incident record identifies the location as United Kingdom.
Reported claims
- From 1982 to 1986, St George's Hospital Medical School used a program to automate a portion of their admissions process that allegedly discriminated against women and members of ethnic minorities.
Material unknowns
- Independent corroboration is not established in the available incident record.
Primary governance problem
The incident appears to expose a governance problem involving decision. Available reporting supports preliminary methodological interpretation, not a finding of fault or non-compliance.
Architecture intelligence
CLIA® — Cognitive Governance Intelligence Architecture
Primary architecture
The reported decision concern falls within the governed questions represented by CLIA® — Cognitive Governance Intelligence Architecture.
Governance focus: How should decision be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
PGA™ — Prediction Governance Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported support concern falls within the governed questions represented by PGA™ — Prediction Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should support be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
AGA™ — Accountability Governance Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported decision concern falls within the governed questions represented by AGA™ — Accountability Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should decision be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
ORA™ - Operational Reality Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported decision concern falls within the governed questions represented by ORA™ - Operational Reality Architecture.
Governance focus: How should decision be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
Preliminary governance questions
- How should decision be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- How should support be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- What operational authority and controls applied to St George'S Hospital Medical School at the relevant time?
- What evidence would establish how St George'S Hospital Medical School Automated Admissions Screening Program, Automated Admissions Screening Systems, Ai Enabled Decision Support Systems produced or enabled the reported outcome?
- What additional independent evidence is required to resolve the material evidence gaps?
Evidence gaps and limitations
- Only one independent source group is represented; corroboration is not established.
- AI technology is not specified in the source record.