Public Data Correction and Accountability Act

By /

Model Act Generated from the NSIR / CLIP Clean-System Framework

Long Title

An Act to establish rights of inspection, correction, explanation, challenge, and remedy for data used in high-impact public decisions; to require public authorities to maintain lawful, accurate, traceable, auditable, purpose-limited, and correctable data systems; to govern data flows, secondary use, inferred data, automated data use, and data-sharing in public administration; and to ensure that public power exercised through data remains visible, accountable, and democratically correctable.

Preamble

Whereas public administration increasingly relies on data to determine rights, benefits, eligibility, access, enforcement, risk, identity, legal status, service priority, public safety, taxation, housing, immigration, health, education, social supports, child welfare, permits, licenses, procurement, and other high-impact public outcomes;

Whereas data is not neutral when it is used by public authority;

Whereas a person may be treated not as they are, but as a public system’s data says they are;

Whereas incorrect, stale, incomplete, unlawfully obtained, mismatched, inferred, misclassified, or uncorrectable data can produce unlawful, unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory, delayed, or harmful public decisions;

Whereas artificial intelligence, automation, digital government systems, risk models, rules engines, case-management systems, data-sharing arrangements, and public-service portals may amplify the consequences of bad data;

Whereas a democratic public system cannot be accountable if affected persons cannot see, understand, challenge, or correct the data materially used against them;

Whereas data collected for one public purpose should not silently expand into unrelated public uses without lawful authority, public notice, auditability, and correction rights;

Whereas public data systems must preserve audit trails sufficient for appeal, oversight, legal review, and systemic correction;

Whereas clean public systems require correctable data, traceable data flows, bounded authority, meaningful human review, and remedy where data error causes material harm;

Therefore, Parliament enacts as follows.

Part 1 — Short Title, Purpose, and Core Principles

1. Short Title

This Act may be cited as the Public Data Correction and Accountability Act.

2. Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to ensure that data used in high-impact public administration is:

  1. lawful;
  2. purpose-limited;
  3. accurate;
  4. current;
  5. relevant;
  6. traceable;
  7. auditable;
  8. correctable;
  9. explainable where used in decisions;
  10. protected against unauthorized access or misuse;
  11. subject to meaningful human review;
  12. subject to remedy where material error causes harm.

3. Core Rule

A public authority shall not materially rely on data in a high-impact public decision unless the data use is lawful, traceable, auditable, proportionate to the public purpose, and subject to inspection, correction, review, and remedy by affected persons where appropriate.

4. Data Correction Principle

A person affected by a high-impact public decision must have a practical pathway to inspect, understand, challenge, and correct data materially used to determine their rights, benefits, eligibility, access, legal status, enforcement exposure, risk classification, service priority, or public obligations.

5. Data Accountability Principle

A public authority remains accountable for decisions materially influenced by data, including data supplied by another public authority, generated by a vendor system, inferred by an algorithmic system, imported from a third party, or reused from a prior public purpose.

6. No Data Laundering

A public authority shall not avoid responsibility for public decisions by attributing error or harm to another agency’s data, a vendor database, a legacy system, an automated workflow, an AI system, a data broker, or a third-party record.

7. Relationship to Other Law

This Act supplements, and does not limit, protections, rights, remedies, or duties under constitutional law, privacy law, access-to-information law, administrative law, human rights law, public records law, cybersecurity law, procurement law, or any other applicable law.

Where another law provides stronger protection, the stronger protection prevails.

Part 2 — Definitions

8. Definitions

In this Act:

“affected person” means a person, household, organization, community, Indigenous government, business, public body, or legal entity whose rights, benefits, obligations, eligibility, access, service level, enforcement exposure, legal status, identity, property, livelihood, privacy, liberty, safety, or public interest may be materially affected by data used in a high-impact public system.

“algorithmically derived data” means data, classification, score, inference, prediction, risk rating, eligibility indication, priority ranking, category, label, profile, or recommendation generated or materially shaped by an automated, algorithmic, statistical, or AI system.

“audit trail” means a record sufficient to reconstruct the collection, source, access, use, sharing, correction, deletion, transformation, inference, decision relevance, and authority associated with data used in a high-impact public decision.

“case data” means data relating to a specific person, application, file, benefit, investigation, permit, license, inspection, enforcement action, appeal, complaint, eligibility determination, or public-service request.

“correction” means the amendment, supplementation, annotation, restriction, deletion, replacement, de-linking, reclassification, reconsideration, or other remedial action necessary to prevent inaccurate, incomplete, stale, unlawful, misapplied, mismatched, or misleading data from materially affecting a high-impact public decision.

“data-flow map” means a documented account of what data is collected, generated, inferred, shared, accessed, retained, corrected, deleted, reused, linked, exported, or processed within or across a public system.

“data provenance” means the origin, source, collection method, legal authority, transformation history, sharing history, correction history, and decision-use history associated with data.

“data-sharing arrangement” means any legal, administrative, technical, contractual, interdepartmental, intergovernmental, vendor, or platform arrangement under which data is disclosed, accessed, transferred, queried, linked, pooled, integrated, or reused.

“derived data” means data produced by calculation, classification, inference, matching, profiling, scoring, statistical analysis, aggregation, transformation, or algorithmic processing of other data.

“high-impact public decision” means a decision, recommendation, classification, prioritization, denial, approval, delay, enforcement action, eligibility determination, risk rating, service determination, payment decision, investigation, inspection, sanction, or administrative outcome that materially affects rights, benefits, obligations, eligibility, access to essential services, legal status, liberty, property, livelihood, privacy, safety, housing, immigration, taxation, health, education, child welfare, social supports, public safety, or other significant public interests.

“high-impact public system” means a public system that materially affects, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, high-impact public decisions.

“material data error” means data that is incorrect, stale, incomplete, unlawfully obtained, mismatched, misclassified, misapplied, misleading, improperly inferred, improperly shared, improperly retained, or otherwise unreliable in a manner that materially affects or could materially affect a high-impact public decision.

“personal data” means data relating to an identified or identifiable person.

“public authority” means a department, ministry, agency, Crown corporation, tribunal, regulator, public office, municipality, delegated authority, contractor acting under public authority, or other body exercising public functions under law.

“public data system” means any database, records system, case-management system, data warehouse, digital portal, identity system, data-sharing platform, analytics system, AI system, rules engine, automated workflow, or other public system used to collect, store, process, infer, share, or apply data in public administration.

“responsible authority” means the public authority legally responsible for the collection, use, sharing, correction, retention, deletion, auditability, or decision use of data in a high-impact public system.

“secondary use” means the use of data for a purpose materially different from the purpose for which the data was collected, generated, obtained, or originally authorized.

“sensitive data” means data relating to race, ethnicity, Indigenous identity, religion, political opinion, health, disability, biometric information, genetic information, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, immigration status, financial condition, criminal history, child welfare history, location history, or any other category prescribed by regulation.

Part 3 — Application and Scope

9. Application

This Act applies to data used, collected, generated, inferred, shared, retained, corrected, deleted, or relied upon by a public authority in a high-impact public system.

10. High-Impact Data Use

Data use shall be classified as high-impact where it materially influences, or is reasonably likely to materially influence:

  1. eligibility for public benefits, permits, grants, licenses, housing, health, education, immigration, taxation, or social supports;
  2. access to essential public services;
  3. enforcement, inspection, investigation, penalties, sanctions, policing, corrections, child welfare, border administration, or compliance actions;
  4. legal status, identity, liberty, mobility, livelihood, property, or privacy;
  5. public safety, emergency response, critical infrastructure, national security, or continuity of government;
  6. allocation of scarce public resources;
  7. automated, AI-assisted, algorithmic, or risk-based public decisions;
  8. public procurement, public finance, or public assets above a prescribed threshold;
  9. any other matter prescribed by regulation.

11. Data Supplied by Other Bodies

Where a public authority relies on data supplied by another public authority, vendor, contractor, third party, platform, legacy system, data broker, or automated system, the responsible authority remains accountable for ensuring the data is lawful, traceable, auditable, and correctable where materially used in a high-impact public decision.

12. Prohibition on Avoidance

A public authority shall not divide, outsource, relabel, technically reclassify, infer, derive, anonymize, aggregate, or embed data within another system for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of this Act.

13. De-Identified or Aggregated Data

Where de-identified, anonymized, pseudonymized, or aggregated data is used in a manner that materially affects identifiable persons, groups, communities, eligibility, enforcement, access, risk, or allocation of public resources, the responsible authority shall assess whether this Act applies.

Part 4 — Data Authority and Public Purpose

14. Data Authority Requirement

A public authority shall not collect, generate, infer, share, retain, or materially rely on data in a high-impact public system without lawful authority.

15. Data Purpose Statement

Every high-impact public data use shall have a data purpose statement identifying:

  1. the public purpose served;
  2. the legal authority relied on;
  3. the affected population;
  4. the data categories used;
  5. the decisions or services affected;
  6. the harms or outcomes the data use is intended to address;
  7. the responsible authority.

16. Bounded Use

Data used in a high-impact public system shall be limited to what is reasonably necessary, proportionate, and relevant to the public purpose.

17. No Hidden Criteria

A public authority shall not materially rely on hidden, undisclosed, unlawful, irrelevant, or unreviewable data criteria in a high-impact public decision.

18. Sensitive Data

A public authority shall not materially rely on sensitive data in a high-impact public decision unless the use is expressly authorized by law, necessary for the public purpose, proportionate to the objective, subject to safeguards, and reviewable by affected persons where appropriate.

Part 5 — Data-Flow Mapping

19. Data-Flow Map Requirement

Every high-impact public system shall maintain a data-flow map.

20. Contents of Data-Flow Map

A data-flow map shall identify:

  1. data categories collected;
  2. legal authority for collection;
  3. source of data;
  4. collection method;
  5. data generated by the system;
  6. derived or inferred data;
  7. data quality controls;
  8. data access permissions;
  9. internal data sharing;
  10. external data sharing;
  11. vendor access;
  12. cross-jurisdictional data transfer;
  13. AI, automation, scoring, or analytics use;
  14. retention period;
  15. deletion or de-identification process;
  16. correction pathway;
  17. audit logs;
  18. secondary uses;
  19. known risks;
  20. responsible authority.

21. Public Data-Flow Summary

The responsible authority shall publish a citizen-readable summary of data flows for each high-impact public system unless publication would create a serious and demonstrable risk to national security, cybersecurity, privacy, law enforcement, personal safety, or lawful confidentiality.

Where full publication is restricted, the responsible authority shall publish the highest safe level of public explanation and maintain a restricted record for authorized review.

22. Material Change to Data Flow

A material change to data collected, data source, data-sharing arrangement, secondary use, AI use, retention period, vendor access, affected population, or decision use shall trigger an updated data-flow map and systems integrity review.

Part 6 — Right to Inspect Relevant Data

23. Right to Inspect

An affected person has the right to request inspection of personal or case data materially used in a high-impact public decision affecting them.

24. Contents of Inspection Response

An inspection response shall identify, subject to lawful limits:

  1. the data materially relied on;
  2. the source of the data;
  3. the date of collection or generation;
  4. the legal authority for use;
  5. whether the data was shared from another public authority or third party;
  6. whether the data was inferred, derived, scored, or classified;
  7. whether AI or automation materially used the data;
  8. whether the data was corrected, disputed, or updated;
  9. the pathway for correction, review, appeal, or remedy.

25. Format

The inspection response shall be provided in an accessible, understandable, and usable format.

26. Time Limit

The responsible authority shall respond to an inspection request within the prescribed period.

Urgent requests involving essential services, legal status, enforcement, liberty, safety, housing, health, income support, or serious harm shall be expedited.

27. Limits on Inspection

Inspection may be limited only where necessary to protect national security, cybersecurity, law enforcement integrity, privacy of another person, personal safety, legally privileged information, or lawful confidentiality.

A limitation shall be no broader than necessary and shall not eliminate meaningful review, correction, or appeal.

Part 7 — Right to Correct Relevant Data

28. Right to Correction

An affected person has the right to request correction of personal or case data materially used, or reasonably likely to be used, in a high-impact public decision affecting them.

29. Grounds for Correction

A correction request may be made where data is:

  1. inaccurate;
  2. stale;
  3. incomplete;
  4. unlawfully obtained;
  5. mismatched;
  6. misclassified;
  7. misapplied;
  8. improperly inferred;
  9. misleading without context;
  10. irrelevant to the stated purpose;
  11. retained beyond lawful authority;
  12. shared beyond lawful authority;
  13. used for an unauthorized secondary purpose.

30. Correction Actions

Where correction is warranted, the responsible authority shall take appropriate action, including:

  1. amendment;
  2. supplementation;
  3. annotation;
  4. deletion;
  5. de-linking;
  6. reclassification;
  7. restriction of use;
  8. notice to downstream recipients;
  9. reconsideration of affected decision;
  10. remedy where appropriate.

31. Disputed Data Annotation

Where the responsible authority does not accept a correction request, the affected person may require that the relevant record be annotated to reflect that the data is disputed, subject to lawful limits.

32. Downstream Correction

Where corrected data has been shared with another public authority, vendor, contractor, platform, tribunal, enforcement body, or decision system, the responsible authority shall take reasonable steps to notify downstream recipients where the data may materially affect a high-impact public decision.

33. Correction Time Limit

A responsible authority shall determine a correction request within the prescribed period.

Urgent correction requests involving essential services, legal status, enforcement, liberty, safety, housing, health, income support, or serious harm shall be expedited.

Part 8 — Decision Reconsideration and Remedy

34. Reconsideration Required

Where a high-impact public decision was materially influenced by a material data error, the responsible authority shall reconsider the decision.

35. Scope of Reconsideration

Reconsideration shall include:

  1. correction or annotation of relevant data;
  2. review of the decision pathway;
  3. review of any AI, automation, scoring, classification, or rules engine materially involved;
  4. opportunity for the affected person to submit additional evidence;
  5. meaningful human review;
  6. written reasons;
  7. remedy where appropriate.

36. Remedy

Where material harm resulted from a data error, the responsible authority shall provide an appropriate remedy within its lawful authority.

Remedy may include:

  1. correction of the decision;
  2. reversal of the decision;
  3. restoration of benefit, service, status, access, or eligibility;
  4. expedited processing;
  5. cessation of enforcement;
  6. deletion or restriction of unlawful data use;
  7. notice to downstream recipients;
  8. correction of public records;
  9. referral to an appropriate tribunal, court, ombuds, privacy commissioner, human rights body, or oversight body;
  10. any other remedy prescribed by law.

37. No Illusory Remedy

A remedy process shall not satisfy this Act if the reviewer lacks authority to inspect relevant data, correct data, consider additional evidence, review automated data use, provide reasons, or vary the decision where appropriate.

Part 9 — Inferred, Derived, Scored, and Algorithmic Data

38. Reviewability of Inferred Data

Where inferred, derived, scored, classified, predicted, or algorithmically generated data materially influences a high-impact public decision, the responsible authority shall ensure that the output is reviewable, challengeable, and explainable at a level sufficient for affected-person review, audit, and appeal.

39. No Conclusive Treatment

Inferred, derived, scored, classified, predicted, or algorithmically generated data shall not be treated as conclusive proof of fact without lawful authority, evidentiary basis, and meaningful human judgment.

40. Risk Scores

Where a risk score materially influences a high-impact public decision, the responsible authority shall identify:

  1. the purpose of the score;
  2. the legal authority for its use;
  3. the data categories used;
  4. the decision pathway affected;
  5. the limits of the score;
  6. the human review mechanism;
  7. the correction pathway;
  8. the appeal or remedy pathway;
  9. auditability safeguards.

41. Sensitive Inferences

A public authority shall not infer sensitive traits for high-impact decision-making unless expressly authorized by law, strictly necessary for the public purpose, proportionate, subject to safeguards, and reviewable.

42. Group and Community Impacts

Where data analytics, scoring, profiling, or algorithmic classification materially affects groups, neighbourhoods, communities, Indigenous peoples, vulnerable populations, or protected classes, the responsible authority shall assess group-level error, exclusion, discrimination, misclassification, or systemic harm.

Part 10 — Secondary Use and Data-Sharing Controls

43. Secondary Use Requirement

Data collected, generated, inferred, or obtained for one public purpose shall not be used for a materially different high-impact public purpose unless the responsible authority has:

  1. lawful authority;
  2. a clear public purpose;
  3. public notice where appropriate;
  4. updated data-flow map;
  5. privacy review;
  6. systems integrity review;
  7. correction pathway;
  8. audit trail;
  9. appeal or remedy pathway where affected persons may be materially harmed.

44. Data-Sharing Agreements

A data-sharing arrangement involving high-impact public data shall be documented in a data-sharing agreement.

45. Contents of Data-Sharing Agreement

A data-sharing agreement shall identify:

  1. parties;
  2. legal authority;
  3. public purpose;
  4. data categories;
  5. affected population;
  6. permitted uses;
  7. prohibited uses;
  8. retention period;
  9. security safeguards;
  10. audit requirements;
  11. correction process;
  12. downstream sharing limits;
  13. breach reporting;
  14. termination process;
  15. public summary requirements.

46. Sharing Logs

A responsible authority shall maintain logs of material data-sharing events involving high-impact public data.

47. Cross-Jurisdictional Data Sharing

Before high-impact public data is shared across jurisdictions, the responsible authority shall assess:

  1. legal authority;
  2. public purpose;
  3. privacy implications;
  4. correction rights;
  5. appeal or remedy pathways;
  6. auditability;
  7. security;
  8. foreign or external access risks;
  9. data return, deletion, or termination conditions.

48. Vendor Access

Vendor access to high-impact public data shall be limited, logged, authorized, auditable, and governed by contract.

Vendor access shall not create uncontrolled secondary use, undisclosed model training, undisclosed subcontracting, or loss of public record control.

Part 11 — Retention, Deletion, and De-Identification

49. Retention Limits

High-impact public data shall be retained only as long as lawful, necessary, and proportionate for the public purpose, legal obligation, audit, appeal, oversight, or public record requirement.

50. Retention Schedule

Every high-impact public data system shall maintain a retention schedule identifying:

  1. data category;
  2. legal basis for retention;
  3. retention period;
  4. deletion or archival process;
  5. de-identification process where applicable;
  6. audit requirements;
  7. exceptions;
  8. responsible authority.

51. Deletion or Restriction

Where data is unlawfully retained, no longer necessary, materially inaccurate, improperly shared, or inconsistent with lawful purpose, the responsible authority shall delete, restrict, archive, de-identify, or otherwise limit use as appropriate.

52. De-Identification and Re-Identification Risk

Where de-identification is used, the responsible authority shall assess re-identification risk, linkage risk, secondary use risk, and public accountability implications.

53. No Indefinite Data Hoarding

A public authority shall not retain high-impact public data indefinitely merely because future use may be convenient.

Part 12 — Audit Trails and Records

54. Audit-Trail Duty

Every high-impact public data system shall preserve audit trails sufficient to reconstruct material data collection, access, use, sharing, transformation, inference, correction, deletion, decision relevance, and system changes.

55. Contents of Audit Trail

An audit trail shall include, where applicable:

  1. data source;
  2. data collection date;
  3. legal authority;
  4. user access;
  5. vendor access;
  6. data modification;
  7. data sharing;
  8. data correction;
  9. data deletion;
  10. inferred or derived data generation;
  11. AI or algorithmic use;
  12. decision use;
  13. appeal or review;
  14. downstream notification;
  15. system changes;
  16. breach or incident events.

56. Audit Log Integrity

Audit logs shall be protected against unauthorized alteration, deletion, concealment, or tampering.

57. Retention of Audit Records

Audit records shall be retained for a period sufficient to support inspection, correction, appeal, audit, legal review, privacy review, investigation, public accountability, and systemic correction.

58. Tampering and Destruction

A person shall not knowingly destroy, alter, conceal, or prevent access to audit trails or records required under this Act.

Part 13 — Data Incidents and Breach Reporting

59. Data Incident Reporting Duty

A responsible authority shall report material data incidents involving high-impact public data.

60. Reportable Data Incidents

A reportable data incident includes:

  1. unauthorized access;
  2. unauthorized sharing;
  3. unauthorized secondary use;
  4. material data error affecting decisions;
  5. data loss;
  6. breach of sensitive data;
  7. failure to correct downstream data;
  8. algorithmic misclassification caused by data defect;
  9. repeated mismatch or identity error;
  10. audit-log failure;
  11. vendor misuse or unauthorized access;
  12. inability to reconstruct data use;
  13. data retention beyond lawful authority;
  14. data deletion failure where deletion is required.

61. Incident Response Plan

A responsible authority shall maintain an incident response plan for high-impact public data systems.

The plan shall identify:

  1. detection process;
  2. responsible officials;
  3. triage process;
  4. containment process;
  5. affected-person notification;
  6. correction process;
  7. downstream notification;
  8. appeal or remedy process;
  9. public reporting;
  10. post-incident review;
  11. systemic repair process.

62. Affected-Person Notice

Where a data incident may materially affect a person’s rights, benefits, eligibility, access, legal status, enforcement exposure, privacy, safety, or essential services, the responsible authority shall notify the affected person unless prohibited by law or unless notice would create a serious and demonstrable risk to safety, security, or lawful investigation.

Part 14 — Public Data Register and Transparency

63. Public Data Systems Register

The government shall establish and maintain a public register of high-impact public data systems.

64. Contents of Register

The register shall include:

  1. system name;
  2. responsible authority;
  3. public purpose;
  4. legal authority;
  5. affected population;
  6. data categories used;
  7. whether sensitive data is used;
  8. whether AI, automation, scoring, or analytics is used;
  9. data-sharing arrangements;
  10. correction pathway;
  11. inspection pathway;
  12. appeal or remedy pathway;
  13. audit status;
  14. retention schedule status;
  15. incident history where appropriate;
  16. date of last review;
  17. next review date.

65. Public Data Accountability Dashboard

The government shall maintain a public data accountability dashboard.

66. Dashboard Indicators

The dashboard shall include indicators for:

  1. high-impact data systems identified;
  2. systems with data-flow maps;
  3. systems with public summaries;
  4. systems with correction pathways;
  5. systems with retention schedules;
  6. systems using AI or algorithmic data;
  7. systems using sensitive data;
  8. data incidents reported;
  9. correction requests received;
  10. correction requests resolved;
  11. downstream correction notices issued;
  12. data-sharing agreements registered;
  13. unresolved auditability gaps;
  14. upcoming review dates.

67. Citizen-Readable Data Summary

Every high-impact public data system shall have a citizen-readable summary explaining:

  1. what data is used;
  2. why it is used;
  3. what law authorizes it;
  4. who may be affected;
  5. where the data comes from;
  6. where the data is shared;
  7. whether AI or automation uses it;
  8. how to inspect relevant data;
  9. how to correct wrong data;
  10. how to appeal or request review;
  11. how long data is retained;
  12. what happens if data is wrong.

Part 15 — Independent Review and Public Challenge

68. Independent Review

A critical public data system shall be subject to independent review by persons with appropriate expertise in law, privacy, public administration, data governance, cybersecurity, systems engineering, accessibility, audit, human rights, and the affected domain.

69. Red-Team Review

A critical public data system shall be subject to red-team review.

The review shall ask:

  1. how data errors could occur;
  2. how data errors could propagate;
  3. how affected persons could be misclassified;
  4. how data could be reused beyond purpose;
  5. how correction could fail;
  6. how appeal could be blocked;
  7. how sensitive data could be misused;
  8. how vendor access could create risk;
  9. how AI could amplify data defects;
  10. how audit trails could fail;
  11. how the system could resist correction.

70. Public Challenge Process

The responsible authority shall establish a process through which affected persons, civil society, journalists, public servants, auditors, experts, Indigenous governments, public bodies, and other affected parties may submit evidence of data error, data misuse, correction failure, sharing risk, auditability gap, or systemic harm.

Part 16 — Security, Confidentiality, and Bounded Accountability

71. Protected Information

Nothing in this Act requires public disclosure of information where disclosure would create a serious and demonstrable risk to national security, cybersecurity, privacy of another person, law enforcement, personal safety, legally privileged information, or lawful confidentiality.

72. Bounded Accountability

Where information cannot be made public, the responsible authority shall provide:

  1. a public summary at the highest safe level of abstraction;
  2. a restricted record for authorized reviewers;
  3. audit access sufficient to verify legality, accountability, and compliance;
  4. written reasons for withholding public disclosure.

73. No Secrecy Without Review

Confidentiality shall not eliminate the requirement for authorized audit, legal review, privacy review, cybersecurity review, appeal review, oversight, or accountability.

Part 17 — Oversight, Compliance, and Remedies

74. Oversight Body

An authorized oversight body shall monitor compliance with this Act.

The oversight body may be established by regulation or assigned to an existing public authority with appropriate independence, expertise, and legal powers.

75. Powers of Oversight Body

The oversight body may:

  1. require records;
  2. inspect data-flow maps;
  3. inspect audit trails;
  4. review data-sharing agreements;
  5. investigate data incidents;
  6. require correction processes;
  7. require downstream correction notices;
  8. order suspension of unlawful data use;
  9. order deletion, restriction, or annotation of data where lawful;
  10. require retention schedule repair;
  11. require public reporting;
  12. receive complaints;
  13. refer matters to tribunals, courts, auditors, privacy commissioners, human rights bodies, cybersecurity authorities, procurement authorities, or law enforcement where appropriate.

76. Compliance Orders

The oversight body may issue a compliance order requiring a responsible authority to:

  1. prepare or update a data-flow map;
  2. publish a citizen-readable data summary;
  3. establish an inspection pathway;
  4. establish a correction pathway;
  5. correct a material data error;
  6. notify downstream recipients;
  7. repair an audit-trail gap;
  8. update a data-sharing agreement;
  9. restrict unlawful secondary use;
  10. suspend unsafe data use;
  11. update a retention schedule;
  12. report on repair progress.

77. Individual Remedy

Where an affected person suffers material harm due to a failure to provide inspection, correction, reconsideration, remedy, auditability, lawful process, or data accountability required by this Act, the affected person may seek remedy through the applicable review, appeal, tribunal, court, ombuds, privacy, human rights, administrative, or oversight process.

78. Systemic Correction Orders

Where recurring data errors, misclassifications, unauthorized uses, correction failures, sharing failures, audit gaps, or harmful data practices are identified, the oversight body may require a systemic correction plan.

79. Whistleblower Protection

No person shall suffer retaliation for reporting a public data integrity failure, unlawful data use, material data error, correction failure, vendor misuse, auditability gap, data incident, or serious public-system risk in good faith.

Part 18 — Regulations

80. Regulations

The Governor in Council may make regulations:

  1. prescribing high-impact data uses;
  2. prescribing critical public data systems;
  3. establishing inspection request procedures;
  4. establishing correction request procedures;
  5. establishing data-flow mapping standards;
  6. establishing audit-trail requirements;
  7. establishing data-sharing agreement requirements;
  8. establishing retention schedule standards;
  9. prescribing sensitive data categories;
  10. prescribing incident reporting thresholds;
  11. prescribing public register requirements;
  12. prescribing dashboard indicators;
  13. establishing phased implementation timelines;
  14. exempting systems where equivalent or stronger protections exist.

81. No Regulation May Defeat Purpose

No regulation made under this Act shall defeat the purpose of ensuring lawful, accurate, purpose-limited, traceable, auditable, correctable, and democratically accountable public data systems.

Part 19 — Statutory Review, Pilot Phase, and Coming into Force

82. Statutory Review

A committee of Parliament shall review this Act within three years after coming into force and every five years thereafter.

The review shall examine:

  1. whether the Act improves public data correction;
  2. whether it improves inspection and explanation rights;
  3. whether it reduces data errors in high-impact decisions;
  4. whether it improves data-flow visibility;
  5. whether it improves auditability;
  6. whether it controls unauthorized secondary use;
  7. whether it improves remedy for affected persons;
  8. whether it creates unnecessary bureaucracy;
  9. whether amendments are required.

83. Pilot Phase

This Act shall be implemented through a pilot phase applying first to prescribed high-impact public data systems, including:

  1. public benefits and eligibility systems;
  2. immigration or legal-status systems;
  3. digital identity systems;
  4. public AI or automated decision systems;
  5. housing, permitting, or licensing systems;
  6. enforcement, inspection, or risk-scoring systems;
  7. child welfare or social-service systems;
  8. public health or safety systems;
  9. public data-sharing systems;
  10. procurement, grants, or public finance systems.

84. Coming into Force

This Act comes into force on a day fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

Different provisions may come into force on different days.

Schedule A — Data Correction Request Process

A data correction request shall include, where available:

  1. affected person’s name or identifier;
  2. public system involved;
  3. decision or service affected;
  4. data believed to be incorrect, stale, incomplete, misapplied, mismatched, unlawfully obtained, improperly inferred, or otherwise unreliable;
  5. evidence or explanation supporting the request;
  6. urgency or harm involved;
  7. requested correction;
  8. request for reconsideration where a decision was materially affected.

The responsible authority shall provide:

  1. confirmation of receipt;
  2. expected timeline;
  3. contact point;
  4. decision on correction request;
  5. reasons where correction is refused;
  6. annotation option for disputed data;
  7. appeal or review pathway;
  8. downstream correction notice where applicable.

Schedule B — Data-Flow Map Template

A data-flow map shall identify:

  1. system name;
  2. responsible authority;
  3. public purpose;
  4. legal authority;
  5. affected population;
  6. data categories;
  7. data sources;
  8. collection method;
  9. derived or inferred data;
  10. sensitive data;
  11. internal access;
  12. external sharing;
  13. vendor access;
  14. AI or automation use;
  15. secondary uses;
  16. retention period;
  17. deletion or de-identification process;
  18. correction pathway;
  19. audit logs;
  20. known risks;
  21. review date.

Schedule C — Public Data System Summary

A citizen-readable data summary shall answer:

  1. What data does this public system use?
  2. Why does the system use the data?
  3. What law allows the data use?
  4. Who can be affected?
  5. Where does the data come from?
  6. Is the data shared?
  7. Is the data used by AI, automation, scoring, or analytics?
  8. Can I inspect relevant data?
  9. Can I correct wrong data?
  10. What happens if wrong data affected a decision?
  11. How long is data kept?
  12. Who can I contact?
  13. How can I appeal or request review?

Schedule D — Data Failure Mode Register

A data failure-mode register shall identify:

  1. failure mode;
  2. affected population;
  3. data source;
  4. triggering condition;
  5. likely harm;
  6. severity;
  7. probability;
  8. detectability;
  9. responsible authority;
  10. existing control;
  11. missing control;
  12. repair action;
  13. deadline;
  14. status;
  15. review date.

Failure modes may include:

  1. stale data;
  2. incorrect data;
  3. identity mismatch;
  4. duplicate record;
  5. missing record;
  6. misclassification;
  7. improper inference;
  8. unauthorized sharing;
  9. unauthorized secondary use;
  10. retention beyond authority;
  11. deletion failure;
  12. audit-log failure;
  13. downstream correction failure;
  14. vendor misuse;
  15. algorithmic amplification of data error.

Schedule E — Data-Sharing Agreement Minimum Terms

A high-impact data-sharing agreement shall include:

  1. parties;
  2. legal authority;
  3. public purpose;
  4. data categories;
  5. affected population;
  6. permitted uses;
  7. prohibited uses;
  8. sensitive data safeguards;
  9. retention period;
  10. deletion or return requirements;
  11. correction process;
  12. downstream notification process;
  13. audit requirements;
  14. access controls;
  15. breach reporting;
  16. vendor or subcontractor restrictions;
  17. termination process;
  18. public summary requirements.

Schedule F — Data Incident Response Minimum Requirements

A data incident response plan shall include:

  1. detection process;
  2. responsible officials;
  3. severity classification;
  4. containment process;
  5. affected-person assessment;
  6. notification process;
  7. data correction process;
  8. downstream correction process;
  9. appeal or remedy process;
  10. public reporting process;
  11. oversight notification;
  12. post-incident review;
  13. systemic repair plan.

Final Standard

The Public Data Correction and Accountability Act exists because public systems increasingly govern through data.

A person should not be denied, delayed, flagged, ranked, investigated, excluded, or penalized because a public system contains data they cannot see, challenge, or correct.

Bad data becomes bad administration.

Uncorrectable data becomes unchallengeable power.

A clean public system must therefore make data lawful, traceable, auditable, correctable, and accountable.

The standard is simple:

No high-impact public decision should rely on data that affected persons cannot meaningfully inspect, challenge, correct, or obtain remedy for when wrong.

 

Project Page: AI Does Not Fix Government. It Amplifies It (Part 1) https://x.com/SkillsGapTrain/status/2065348053645861271

Disclaimer: This is an open-source educational system that is being developed for learning, research, frontier systems engineering and prototyping, intended to help students, teachers, public-sector builders, policy analysts, political leaders, corporate leaders and responsible organizations explore next-generation governance systems for humanity; it is not legal advice, policy authority, certification, or deployment-ready public infrastructure. Executive Summary of Audit of current development status is located at bottom of Part 3 of Project Page.

Scroll to Top