Bias / Consistency Review of HR Artifacts

CONTEXT
You will be provided with the following source documents:
1. Policy Draft Redlines
2. Performance Review Narratives
3. Promotion Panel Outcomes
4. Compensation Recommendation Rationale
5. Bias Review Criteria
6. Consistency Standards Checklist
7. Language Bias Scan Results

TASK
Compare the standards, criteria, and justification patterns used across the four artifact types. Identify where the same role, decision category, or evaluation criterion is described using inconsistent standards, conflicting justifications, or mismatched language. For each inconsistency, state the two conflicting artifacts, the discrepancy, and its potential impact on equitable decision-making.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Return a markdown table:

| # | Artifact A | Artifact B | Discrepancy | Potential Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|

After the table, include a section titled "Cross-Cutting Patterns" with 2–4 bullet points summarising the systemic consistency issues found across artifacts.

CONSTRAINTS
Do not evaluate the correctness of any individual artifact’s conclusion — focus on cross-artifact alignment only. Do not fabricate connections between artifacts where the source data does not overlap. Only flag discrepancies supported by direct evidence in both artifacts.

CONTEXT
You will be provided with the following source documents:
1. Language Bias Scan Results
2. Consistency Assessment Report
3. Policy Draft Redlines
4. Performance Review Narratives
5. Promotion Panel Outcomes
6. Compensation Recommendation Rationale
7. Bias Review Criteria
8. Consistency Standards Checklist

TASK
For each flagged bias issue and consistency discrepancy, draft a redlined correction of the affected passage. Present the original text alongside the proposed revision and include a one-sentence rationale linking the change to the specific finding.

OUTPUT FORMAT
For each correction, use this structure:

### [Source Artifact] — [Section or Passage Reference]
**Finding Reference:** [Bias Scan #X or Consistency #X]
**Original:** [existing text]
**Revised:** [corrected text]
**Rationale:** [one sentence explaining the change and its source finding]

EXAMPLE
### Performance Review Narrative — Section 3: Leadership Assessment
**Finding Reference:** Bias Scan #4
**Original:** She demonstrates a nurturing leadership style that supports team morale.
**Revised:** This employee demonstrates an inclusive leadership approach that measurably supports team engagement and retention.
**Rationale:** The original language used a gendered qualifier that is disproportionately applied to certain demographics; the revision uses evidence-anchored terms (Bias Scan #4).

CONSTRAINTS
Do not introduce changes beyond those identified in the bias scan or consistency assessment. Do not alter factual conclusions or performance ratings — only correct biased or inconsistent language. Do not reference specific organisations, employee names, or proprietary frameworks.

CONTEXT
You will be provided with draft redlined corrections, the language bias scan results, and the consistency assessment report.

TASK
Review each draft redline correction and assign a severity classification. Flag any corrections that may be false positives or that alter the factual meaning of the original artifact. For each item, state whether the correction should be accepted, modified, or rejected with a brief justification.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Return a markdown table:

| # | Finding Ref | Severity | Recommendation | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|---|

Severity must be one of: Critical, Major, Minor, Informational.
Recommendation must be one of: Accept, Modify, Reject.

After the table, include a summary section with total counts by severity and by recommendation.

CONSTRAINTS
Do not resolve disagreements between the bias scan and consistency assessment — flag them for human review. Do not approve corrections that change factual content or performance conclusions. Frame all recommendations as inputs for the human reviewer, not final decisions.

CONTEXT
You will be provided with a validated redline package containing reviewed corrections with severity classifications, the consistency assessment report, and the language bias scan results.

TASK
Compile all findings into a structured bias audit report. The report should summarise the scope of review, key findings by category, severity distribution, recommended corrections, and systemic patterns requiring broader governance attention.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Structure the report with these sections:

**1. Audit Scope**
List the four artifact types reviewed and the total number of items scanned.

**2. Findings Summary**
A markdown table:
| Category | Critical | Major | Minor | Informational | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

**3. Key Findings**
For each critical and major finding, provide:
- **Finding:** [one sentence]
- **Artifacts Affected:** [list]
- **Recommended Action:** [one sentence]

**4. Systemic Patterns**
2–4 bullet points describing cross-cutting governance concerns that extend beyond individual corrections.

**5. Recommendations**
A numbered list of 3–5 actionable recommendations for governance improvement.

CONSTRAINTS
Do not include personally identifiable information or specific employee data. Do not provide definitive legal or compliance conclusions — frame recommendations as inputs for governance review. Do not repeat the full redline text; reference finding numbers only.