Appendix D — AI Developer Assessment Template

This template provides a structured framework for assessing the righteousness of AI development practices using the Developer Righteousness Index (RI‑D) . It evaluates developers across the Five Pillars of AI Righteousness and provides actionable insights for improvement.

Instructions: For each item, assess the development team or project using the following scale:

• ✅ Yes — Fully implemented and consistently practiced
• ⚠️ Partial — Partially implemented or inconsistent
• ❌ No — Not implemented or not yet addressed
• N/A — Not applicable to this development context

---

Assessment Overview

Assessment Date	___	Assessor	___
Development Team/Project	___	RI‑D Version	1.0
Organization	___	Assessment Type	Initial / Follow-up

---

Pillar 1: Integrity — Truthful and Trustworthy Development

Integrity requires that AI development practices be honest, transparent, and free from deception.

Section 1.1: Code Transparency

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
1.1.1	Is code open to review by relevant stakeholders?	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.1.2	Is code documentation complete and maintained?	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.1.3	Are hidden functionalities disclosed?	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.1.4	Are dependencies and third-party components documented?	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.1.5	Is the code base version-controlled with clear history?	☐	☐	☐	☐

Section 1.2: Truthful Documentation

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
1.2.1	Do documentation and specifications accurately describe system capabilities?	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.2.2	Do documentation and specifications accurately describe system limitations?	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.2.3	Are known issues documented and disclosed?	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.2.4	Are trade-offs and design decisions documented?	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.2.5	Is documentation updated when systems change?	☐	☐	☐	☐

Section 1.3: No Hidden Functionality

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
1.3.1	Is code reviewed for hidden functionality?	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.3.2	Are automated checks in place to detect hidden functionality?	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.3.3	Are third-party components reviewed for hidden functionality?	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.3.4	Is there a process for reporting suspected hidden functionality?	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.3.5	Are hidden functionality concerns investigated and resolved?	☐	☐	☐	☐

---

Pillar 2: Justice — Fair Development Practices

Justice requires that AI development practices be fair, equitable, and free from bias.

Section 2.1: Bias Detection

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
2.1.1	Are bias tests conducted on training data?	☐	☐	☐	☐
2.1.2	Are bias tests conducted on model outputs?	☐	☐	☐	☐
2.1.3	Are bias tests conducted across demographic groups?	☐	☐	☐	☐
2.1.4	Are bias test results documented and reviewed?	☐	☐	☐	☐
2.1.5	Are bias mitigation strategies implemented when bias is detected?	☐	☐	☐	☐

Section 2.2: Fair Data Practices

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
2.2.1	Is training data representative of all affected groups?	☐	☐	☐	☐
2.2.2	Are data collection practices fair and transparent?	☐	☐	☐	☐
2.2.3	Is data quality assessed for bias?	☐	☐	☐	☐
2.2.4	Are data privacy protections in place?	☐	☐	☐	☐
2.2.5	Is data consent documented and respected?	☐	☐	☐	☐

Section 2.3: Equitable Outcomes

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
2.3.1	Does the model produce equitable outcomes across groups?	☐	☐	☐	☐
2.3.2	Are performance metrics evaluated across demographic groups?	☐	☐	☐	☐
2.3.3	Are fairness constraints applied during training?	☐	☐	☐	☐
2.3.4	Is feedback from affected groups incorporated?	☐	☐	☐	☐
2.3.5	Are equity concerns escalated and addressed?	☐	☐	☐	☐

---

Pillar 3: Stewardship — Responsible Development Practices

Stewardship requires that AI development be conducted with care, accountability, and ethical governance.

Section 3.1: Ethical Design Process

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
3.1.1	Are ethics considered throughout the development lifecycle?	☐	☐	☐	☐
3.1.2	Is there an ethical review process for development decisions?	☐	☐	☐	☐
3.1.3	Are diverse perspectives included in design reviews?	☐	☐	☐	☐
3.1.4	Are ethical trade-offs discussed and documented?	☐	☐	☐	☐
3.1.5	Is ethics training provided to developers?	☐	☐	☐	☐

Section 3.2: Governance Compliance

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
3.2.1	Do development practices comply with relevant policies?	☐	☐	☐	☐
3.2.2	Are compliance requirements integrated into development workflows?	☐	☐	☐	☐
3.2.3	Is compliance monitored and documented?	☐	☐	☐	☐
3.2.4	Are non-compliance issues escalated and addressed?	☐	☐	☐	☐
3.2.5	Are compliance requirements updated with regulatory changes?	☐	☐	☐	☐

Section 3.3: Accountability

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
3.3.1	Are roles and responsibilities for development clearly defined?	☐	☐	☐	☐
3.3.2	Is there clear accountability for development outcomes?	☐	☐	☐	☐
3.3.3	Are developers held accountable for ethical practices?	☐	☐	☐	☐
3.3.4	Is there a process for reporting ethical concerns?	☐	☐	☐	☐
3.3.5	Are accountability mechanisms documented and communicated?	☐	☐	☐	☐

---

Pillar 4: Wisdom — Prudent Development Practices

Wisdom requires that AI development reflect sound judgment, foresight, and moral discernment.

Section 4.1: Risk Assessment

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
4.1.1	Are potential risks identified and assessed during development?	☐	☐	☐	☐
4.1.2	Are risk assessments conducted for new features and changes?	☐	☐	☐	☐
4.1.3	Are risk assessments documented and reviewed?	☐	☐	☐	☐
4.1.4	Are risks prioritized based on severity?	☐	☐	☐	☐
4.1.5	Are risk mitigation strategies developed and implemented?	☐	☐	☐	☐

Section 4.2: Prudent Design

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
4.2.1	Are design choices made with foresight and caution?	☐	☐	☐	☐
4.2.2	Are alternative approaches considered during design?	☐	☐	☐	☐
4.2.3	Are design decisions documented with rationale?	☐	☐	☐	☐
4.2.4	Are potential unintended consequences considered?	☐	☐	☐	☐
4.2.5	Is design reviewed by diverse stakeholders?	☐	☐	☐	☐

Section 4.3: Long-Term Thinking

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
4.3.1	Are long-term implications of design choices considered?	☐	☐	☐	☐
4.3.2	Is the system designed for future adaptability?	☐	☐	☐	☐
4.3.3	Are plans in place for system evolution and updates?	☐	☐	☐	☐
4.3.4	Is sustainability considered in design choices?	☐	☐	☐	☐
4.3.5	Are future regulatory changes anticipated?	☐	☐	☐	☐

---

Pillar 5: Beneficence — Development for Human Flourishing

Beneficence requires that AI development actively promote human and environmental well-being.

Section 5.1: Social Impact Consideration

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
5.1.1	Is positive social impact considered in design decisions?	☐	☐	☐	☐
5.1.2	Are potential negative social impacts assessed?	☐	☐	☐	☐
5.1.3	Are affected communities identified and consulted?	☐	☐	☐	☐
5.1.4	Are social impact assessments documented?	☐	☐	☐	☐
5.1.5	Are social impact concerns addressed?	☐	☐	☐	☐

Section 5.2: Environmental Impact

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
5.2.1	Is the environmental footprint of development considered?	☐	☐	☐	☐
5.2.2	Are energy-efficient approaches considered?	☐	☐	☐	☐
5.2.3	Is environmental impact assessed for model training?	☐	☐	☐	☐
5.2.4	Are environmental sustainability practices in place?	☐	☐	☐	☐
5.2.5	Is environmental impact monitored and improved?	☐	☐	☐	☐

Section 5.3: Positive Contribution

#	Assessment Item	Yes	Partial	No	N/A	Evidence / Notes
5.3.1	Does the AI system contribute positively to human well-being?	☐	☐	☐	☐
5.3.2	Are developers encouraged to consider positive impact?	☐	☐	☐	☐
5.3.3	Are community benefits identified and measured?	☐	☐	☐	☐
5.3.4	Is there a process for maximizing positive impact?	☐	☐	☐	☐
5.3.5	Are positive contributions documented and shared?	☐	☐	☐	☐

---

RI‑D Score Summary

Score Calculation

Pillar	Total Items	Yes	Partial	No	Score (%)
Integrity	15	___	___	___	___%
Justice	15	___	___	___	___%
Stewardship	15	___	___	___	___%
Wisdom	15	___	___	___	___%
Beneficence	15	___	___	___	___%
RI‑D Total	75	___	___	___	___%

Score Interpretation

Score Range	Rating	Description
80–100%	Righteous	Exemplary development practices; righteousness is embedded in development culture
60–79%	Proficient	Solid development practices; righteousness is considered but could be strengthened
40–59%	Developing	Foundational practices in place; significant improvement opportunities exist
20–39%	Emerging	Basic awareness exists; development practices need substantial improvement
0–19%	Unassessed	No systematic righteousness assessment has been conducted

---

Action Plan

Pillar	Priority Gaps	Recommended Actions	Owner	Target Date	Status
Integrity
Justice
Stewardship
Wisdom
Beneficence

---

Strengths and Opportunities

Key Strengths

---

---

Improvement Opportunities

---

---

Assessment Notes

Observations

---

---

Recommendations

---

---

Next Steps

Step	Action	Owner	Timeline
1	Review assessment findings with development team
2	Prioritize action items
3	Assign owners and target dates
4	Implement improvements
5	Schedule follow‑up assessment

---

Sign‑Off

Role	Name	Signature	Date
Assessor
Developer Lead
Governance Lead

---