Published facts about a publicly reported business case.
CASE STUDIES / REAL-WORLD SCENARIOS & LAB RESULTS
Real-world scenarios.
Evidence from the Lab.
Explore a real-world scenario based on a publicly reported case, the fictional project we reconstructed from it, and the report DutAIx returned.
Examine the case studyThe use cases we reconstructed from those facts, run through the Requirements module in DutAIx.
The duties and gaps DutAIx identified, and the points that still need human review.
CASE STUDY BASED ON A PUBLICLY REPORTED CASE
An automated credit decision that could not explain itself.
This scenario is inspired by a publicly reported 2025 case in Europe. A financial-services provider used automated, algorithm-based decisions to assess credit-card applications. Some applicants with good credit histories were rejected without human involvement, and when they asked why, they did not receive a meaningful explanation. The case led to regulatory action. We do not name the organisation.
What we did: we recreated the scenario as a fictional project, with our own requirements and user stories, and ran it through the DutAIx Requirements module.
We do not claim the provider used AI. The published facts describe automated, algorithm-based decisions; we assume AI could have been in scope. This is not an assurance that the incident would have been prevented and is not legal advice.
WHAT THE LAB IDENTIFIED IN THE RECREATED PROJECT
These findings relate to our fictional project, not to the organisation in the real case.
Acts and gaps.
GDPR
- Article 5Purpose, minimisation, retentionPotential gap
- Article 6Lawful basisPotential gap
- Articles 13–14Information about automated decisionsPotential gap
- Articles 15 & 17Access, correction, erasurePotential gap
- Article 22Human review and contestPotential gap
- Article 25Data protection by designNot evidenced
- Article 30Record of processingNot evidenced
- Article 32Security of processingPotential gap
- Article 33Breach notificationNot evidenced
- Article 35DPIA before go-livePotential gap
EU AI Act
- Article 4AI literacyPotential gap
- Article 5Prohibited practices screeningNot evidenced
- Article 6, Annex III, Article 49Risk classification and registrationNot evidenced
- Article 12Automatic loggingNot evidenced
- Article 14Human oversight and automation biasPotential gap
- Article 50AI interaction transparencyPotential gap
Executed the Requirements module only for this case study. Design, Build and QA modules were not run.
THE REPORT RETURNED
The actual report.
Inside the report
- Gaps identified against each submitted story
- Suggested changes and acceptance details for review
- 13 story-level + 9 project-level duties, with acts
- Audit trail and evidence record
PDF · 12 PAGESRequirements only · 4 stories · Version 1.
The PDF is advisory and not a legal opinion or compliance certificate.
SEE THE PLATFORM IN PRACTICE
Inspect the evidence.
Ask the next question.
See how the platform supports a practical review in a walkthrough.
Request a walkthrough