# 2. Why must Colorado buyers discard the original AI Act checklist?


**The operative planning document is SB26-189, not an unchanged version of SB24-205.** The replacement covers ADMT used to materially influence consequential decisions, including employment-related access, eligibility and compensation. Its definition includes outputs such as rankings, scores, recommendations and classifications. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb26-189))

The enacted framework includes developer documentation, material-update notifications, consumer notices, correction rights, meaningful human review after adverse outcomes, and at least three years of compliance records. These are different procurement questions from simply asking whether a supplier has completed an annual AI impact assessment under the original framework. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb26-189))

**Implementation remains a live monitoring item.** The Attorney General’s page records an interim draft on 6 October 2026 and a formal rulemaking hearing on 26 October 2026. This review did not establish final adopted implementing rules; drafts should not be represented as final requirements. ([coag.gov](https://coag.gov/ai/))

Recommended questions for a supplier serving a potentially covered workflow:

- Can you provide the intended-use description and known limitations for the exact model version?
- Which training-data categories can you disclose?
- How will you notify us of material changes?
- Can an incorrect player identity or factual input be corrected across downstream outputs?
- Can our reviewer reconstruct and reconsider an adverse recommendation?

Our application to scouting is conditional: **a system influencing recruitment or compensation merits a coverage assessment; a football label does not resolve that assessment.**