In an audit-style study of 391 NYC employers after Local Law 144 took effect, 18 posted bias-audit reports and 13 posted transparency notices; employer scope discretion means those counts are not a violation rate.

SocioLens project,

Claim LD12-HQ-C06 (v1.0)

Research opportunities this claim motivates

What this claim leaves open for research. Each is a hypothesis about a gap, not a finding.

Do AI hiring-audit rules cost small employers more than large ones?Only 18 of 391 employers studied posted audit reports and 13 posted notices, and because employers decide whether their tool is covered these counts are not a violation rate; how this discretion is used across firm sizes is exactly what is unknown.

Provenance and status

Claim type: Fact
Publication status: Eligible for publication
Verification state: Checked against the primary source. Who checked this claim is not recorded for it; claim checks so far were AI-led, and no person has checked claims against their sources.
Does not license: A non-compliance rate or AEDT bias prevalence
Limitations: Early period; employer scope classification; NYC only
Source (as cited): Wright et al., Null Compliance, FAccT 2024
Source type: Peer-reviewed conference paper (recorded as “Peer-reviewed article”)
Institutional position: Independent academic
Maturity of the evidence: Mature evidence
Recorded date: 25 September 2026
Currentness / correction: This is the current version. No correction or concern is recorded on its sources.

Sources this version cites

Wright et al., “Null Compliance,” FAccT 2024 (Peer-reviewed conference paper)
Read the original

Version

This is the current version, v1.0. Earlier versions stay available, and their records never change.

Versions: v1.0 · current

Raw record: every recorded field, with its coded values

All 25 canonical Claim fields, verbatim, with the coded values derived from them. The plain-language labels above are read from these.

Claim type (coded): FACT (as printed: “FACT”)
Publication status (coded): ELIGIBLE (as printed: “ELIGIBLE”)
Verification state (coded): CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY
Source type (coded): PEER_REVIEWED_CONFERENCE_PAPER
Maturity (coded): MATURE

#	Canonical field	Canonical value (verbatim)	Normalized (Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2)
1	CLAIM ID	LD12-HQ-C06	—
2	PUBLIC-FACING CLAIM	In an audit-style study of 391 NYC employers after Local Law 144 took effect, 18 posted bias-audit reports and 13 posted transparency notices; employer scope discretion means those counts are not a violation rate.	—
3	CLAIM TYPE	FACT	base_types: FACT
4	RESEARCH STRAND	B/C/E — Compliance / rights / audit infrastructure	—
5	MATURITY	MATURE	states: MATURE
6	SOURCE	Wright et al., Null Compliance, FAccT 2024	source_ids: SRC-LD12-WRIGHT-NULL-COMPLIANCE-2024
7	SOURCE TYPE	Peer-reviewed article	classes: PEER_REVIEWED_CONFERENCE_PAPER
8	INSTITUTIONAL POSITION	Independent academic	—
9	SCOPE	NYC Local Law 144; 2023–24	—
10	DESIGN	Observational audit	—
11	SAMPLE / DATASET	391 employers recorded by 155 investigators	—
12	MODEL / TOOL / VERSION	AEDTs unspecified	—
13	COMPARATOR	Visible audit/notice presence	—
14	MAIN RESULT	18 audit reports; 13 notices; low accessibility and substantial scope discretion.	—
15	INFERENTIAL TARGET	Proceduralization and visible compliance	—
16	DOES NOT LICENSE	A non-compliance rate or AEDT bias prevalence	—
17	VERIFICATION STATE	CONTENT VERIFIED	state: CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY · verified_by: UNKNOWN
18	LIMITATIONS	Early period; employer scope classification; NYC only	—
19	CONTRADICTORY / SUPPORTING SOURCES	NYS Comptroller later documents weak enforcement	—
20	GEOGRAPHY / LANGUAGE	US-NYC / English	—
21	DISTRIBUTIONAL LEDGER	Job-seekers bear disclosure-search burden; group outcomes not established	—
22	R01 / FIELD-MAP LINKS	D6.2, D4b, D2, L-A	—
23	WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS CLAIM?	Regulator-linked replication or later compliance series	—
24	PUBLICATION STATUS	ELIGIBLE	state: ELIGIBLE
25	RECORDED DATE	2026-09-25	—

Field 22 references resolved against Field Map v0.2: D6.2 (SUB_AREA); D4b (SUB_AREA); D2 (DOMAIN); L-A (LENS)

The sources as recorded, with their record IDs and coded source types:

Pinned Sources (field 6, version-specific)

“Wright et al., Null Compliance, FAccT 2024” → Wright et al. (2024), “Null Compliance” (SRC-LD12-WRIGHT-NULL-COMPLIANCE-2024--v1.0) — Wright et al., “Null Compliance,” FAccT 2024; class PEER_REVIEWED_CONFERENCE_PAPER (explicit public provenance pin)

Cited by Living Debate versions

Regulation-in-Practice: Rights, Compliance & Developmental Steering (v0.1) LD-12

Cite this page

SocioLens project. (2026, September 25). In an audit-style study of 391 NYC employers after Local Law 144 took effect, 18 posted bias-audit reports and 13 posted transparency notices; employer scope discretion means those counts are not a violation rate [Claim LD12-HQ-C06, version v1.0]. SocioLens. https://sociolens-web.pages.dev/claims/ld12-hq-c06/v1.0/

@misc{sociolens_ld12_hq_c06_v1_0,
  author = {{SocioLens project}},
  title = {In an audit-style study of 391 NYC employers after Local Law 144 took effect, 18 posted bias-audit reports and 13 posted transparency notices; employer scope discretion means those counts are not a violation rate.},
  year = {2026},
  date = {2026-09-25},
  howpublished = {\url{https://sociolens-web.pages.dev/claims/ld12-hq-c06/v1.0/}},
  note = {Claim LD12-HQ-C06, version v1.0}
}

The link points to this version, whose record never changes. For a finding, cite the original study as well: SocioLens summarizes research and does not replace it.

Research-of-record provenance

Materialized by sociolens-materializer 0.6.0 at 2026-09-28T20:00:00.000Z; normalization contract SocioLens — Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2 — Pre-Spike Materialization Contract (v1.0.2). Content seal SHA-256 97db332d6dd6213eb5aebf259699d077289c0503227046b98b7ad6657ee70bf3.

Frozen Drive-derived inputs

R08 — LD-12 Canonical Claim Ledger v1.0 — LOCKED (v1.0) — Drive ID 1sdIAYxbpV_VV6_xzqmFgCPwej0RadgAopFLRC9iZH5Y; revision: NOT_EXPOSED_BY_DRIVE_TEXT_EXPORT; Drive modified 2026-09-26T06:41:13.718Z; block “ENTRY 06 — LD12-HQ-C06” SHA-256 d080872d61b9323420259034e49d3892668b29764f891923267bad997f8b2eb6; SocioLens — Programme Status & Authority Register v0.6 status “CURRENT.”; frozen fixture fixtures/frozen/r08-ld12-claim-ledger-v1.0.
SocioLens — Proof Source Registry v0.4 (v0.4) — Drive ID 1_-GLmj6PfetWDQH2KldMv-61vmSmzdAyyxgZZZCFnbE; revision: NOT_EXPOSED_BY_DRIVE_TEXT_EXPORT; Drive modified 2026-09-27T19:04:00.374Z; block “REGISTRY ENTRY SRC-LD12-WRIGHT-NULL-COMPLIANCE-2024” SHA-256 41745af7e42bff59205f9d5dc709322c2d3011145ac13a6f5ff2c40f94a7bd3a; SocioLens — Programme Status & Authority Register v0.6 status “CURRENT PROOF SOURCE REGISTRY.”; frozen fixture fixtures/frozen/proof-source-registry-v0.4.

Builder decisions (not Drive data)

VERSION = v1.0 — basis: Claim version taken from the canonical ledger artifact version (R08 — LD-12 Canonical Claim Ledger v1.0); Implementation Architecture Selection §5 logical_id/version convention.
CURRENT_POINTER = true — basis: SocioLens — Programme Status & Authority Register v0.6 status for "R08 — LD-12 Canonical Claim Ledger v1.0 — LOCKED": "CURRENT."
FIELD_6_SOURCE_REFERENCE = SRC-LD12-WRIGHT-NULL-COMPLIANCE-2024--v1.0 — basis: field 6 of ENTRY 06 — LD12-HQ-C06 cites "Wright et al., Null Compliance, FAccT 2024"; Builder identification: the cited work is Proof Source Registry v0.4 identity SRC-LD12-WRIGHT-NULL-COMPLIANCE-2024 (canonical label "Wright et al., “Null Compliance,” FAccT 2024"), Registry-linked to this logical Claim; SocioLens record v1.0 is its sole record.
SOURCE_PROVENANCE_PIN = SRC-LD12-WRIGHT-NULL-COMPLIANCE-2024--v1.0 — basis: Issue #5 proof rendering (Architecture Proof Protocol v0.1 AP-08 / Amendment v1.2 §6): explicit version-pinned public provenance of this ClaimVersion — the pinned field-6 Source record.