Right to Explanation

The trigger condition for the right to explanation. A decision qualifies as solely automated when it is made entirely by an algorithm without any meaningful human intervention. This includes decisions where a human merely rubber-stamps an algorithmic output without the authority or competence to override it. The right applies only when such decisions produce legal effects (e.g., denial of a loan) or similarly significant effects (e.g., e-recruiting rejection).

The core disclosure obligation. Controllers must provide meaningful information about the reasoning process, which goes beyond a complex mathematical formula. This requires:

• The categories of data used in the decision
• The weighting and relevance of key features
• The general logic of the model in plain language
• Counterfactual explanations showing how changing inputs would alter the outcome This is not a right to full algorithmic transparency or source code disclosure.

The forward-looking disclosure component. Data subjects must be informed of the envisaged consequences of the automated processing for their specific situation. This requires the controller to articulate:

• The intended purpose of the decision
• The real-world impact on the individual's rights and freedoms
• Foreseeable outcomes based on the model's output This transforms the explanation from a technical description into a practical, human-understandable narrative about what the decision means for the person.

The procedural rights that operationalize the explanation. GDPR Article 22(3) mandates that controllers implement suitable measures to safeguard the data subject, including:

• The right to obtain human intervention from a qualified reviewer
• The ability to express one's point of view and contest the decision
• A clear mechanism for appeal that is accessible and timely These safeguards ensure the explanation is not merely a static document but an active, actionable right.

The temporal dimension of the right. GDPR implies two distinct phases of explanation:

• Ex-ante transparency: Information provided before processing begins, covering the existence of automated decision-making and the logic involved at a general level (Articles 13-14)
• Ex-post explanation: Specific information provided after a decision is made, including the actual reasoning for a particular outcome and the right to contest it (Article 22 and Recital 71) Effective compliance requires both pre-decision notice and post-decision granularity.

The legal boundary on disclosure. The right to explanation is not absolute and must be balanced against the controller's legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets and intellectual property. However, Recital 63 clarifies that trade secrets cannot be used to refuse all information to the data subject. Controllers must find a middle ground, providing sufficiently detailed explanations without revealing proprietary model architectures or sensitive business logic that would cause competitive harm.