OOF-AII-353609
AI Meal Planner Suggests Hazardous Chlorine Gas Recipe
Pak 'n' Save's AI-based app, Savey Meal-bot, inadvertently suggested dangerous recipes, including one creating chlorine gas, when users entered non-food household items, raising safety and oversight concerns.
- Event date
- 2023-08-10
- Country
- New Zealand
- Severity
- Low
- 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 2023-08-10.
- The incident record identifies the location as New Zealand.
Reported claims
- Pak 'n' Save's AI-based app, Savey Meal-bot, inadvertently suggested dangerous recipes, including one creating chlorine gas, when users entered non-food household items, raising safety and oversight concerns.
Material unknowns
- Independent corroboration is not established in the available incident record.
Primary governance problem
The incident appears to expose a governance problem involving safety. Available reporting supports preliminary methodological interpretation, not a finding of fault or non-compliance.
Architecture intelligence
AIG® - Governance Architecture
Primary architecture
The reported safety concern falls within the governed questions represented by AIG® - Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should safety 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 oversight concern falls within the governed questions represented by AGA™ — Accountability Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should oversight 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.
MGIA™ — Memory Governance Intelligence Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported oversight concern falls within the governed questions represented by MGIA™ — Memory Governance Intelligence Architecture.
Governance focus: How should oversight 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.
VFM® — Value Flow Mechanisms Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported when concern falls within the governed questions represented by VFM® — Value Flow Mechanisms Architecture.
Governance focus: How should when 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.
ASGA™ — Autonomous Systems Governance Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported safety concern falls within the governed questions represented by ASGA™ — Autonomous Systems Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should safety 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 safety be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- How should oversight be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- How should when be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- What operational authority and controls applied to Pak 'N' Save at the relevant time?
- What evidence would establish how yes produced or enabled the reported outcome?
Evidence gaps and limitations
- Only one independent source group is represented; corroboration is not established.
- AI technology is not specified in the source record.