Example 3: Education Appeals Panel Context: A student challenges an algorithmically assigned grade. A teacher and panel review the appeal. Dialogic Entry: Appeal submitted by: Ms. L. Osei, Head of Year Date: 5 September 2020 System grade: C (based on school performance data) Teacher assessment: A (based on coursework, mocks and engagement) Student statement: “I worked for this. The system doesn’t know me.” Panel decision: Grade reinstated to A. Reflection: The algorithm penalised context. Human review restored merit.
Why it matters: The record includes algorithmic rationale, teacher evidence, student testimony and panel reflection. It speaks to fairness and presence.
Ethics of Documentation The author proposes that documentation is not neutral. It reflects choices; what is recorded, what is omitted and who is allowed to speak. In automated systems, documentation often becomes procedural: a log of transactions, a list of outcomes, a record of compliance. But this form of recordkeeping obscures the human experience it claims to capture.
The ethics of documentation begins with voice. Who is heard? In many UK institutions, citizen testimony is reduced to data points: symptoms entered into a bot, appeals summarised in a sentence, complaints routed through portals.
The full account; the fear, the frustration, the context—is rarely preserved. The author argues that documentation must include lived experience. Not as anecdote, but as civic evidence.
It also requires naming. Staff decisions are often anonymised, recorded as “system override” or “manual adjustment.” This protects individuals, but it also erases accountability and responsibility. The author proposes that custodianship must be visible. Every discretionary act should be traceable to a person willing to answer. This is not exposure, it is accountability.
Consent matters. Citizens must know what is being recorded, how it will be used and whether they can access or contest it. In many systems, documentation is hidden; stored in formats that are inaccessible or unintelligible. The ethics of documentation demands transparency. Records must be readable, reviewable and open to correction.
Documentation must also resist distortion. Systems often record what fits the form, not what reflects the truth. A housing application might list “no dependents” because the form excludes informal care. A triage bot might record “no urgency” because the symptoms were described in non-clinical language. The author insists that documentation must be flexible enough to hold complexity, otherwise, it becomes a tool of exclusion.
Finally, documentation must be relational. It must reflect not just what was done, but how it was held. A good record includes reflection, context and care. It shows that someone was present and that someone answered.
