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)

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)

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)

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.