urn:uuid:1347b56e-8c05-5787-9da1-7b688524e2d0SocioLens — RO-LD05-05: In contracts for public decision systems, who controls thresholds, variables and updates?New versions of this research opportunity and changes to the claims it rests on.2026-10-13T00:00:00ZSocioLensurn:uuid:b5caea99-8ad0-5b23-94d6-16c5df7477c8Research opportunity revised to v2: RO-LD05-05 — In contracts for public decision systems, who controls thresholds, variables and updates?2026-10-13T00:00:00ZNarrowed after the literature check. A systematic review of publicly available US state-level AI procurement contracts now exists (Cusenza, SSRN 6812838, forthcoming Drexel Law Review), covering data access, intellectual property, stakeholder engagement, testing and cybersecurity provisions and finding that contracts rarely address algorithmic-governance risks. That covers part of the proposed contract analysis, but on the abstract it is US-only, state-level, not limited to decision-support systems, and does not code authority over thresholds, input variables, retraining or updates, nor compare vendor-built with in-house systems. Other new work codes vendor FactSheets (Kuehnert et al., 2026) or model clauses and guidance (Abdulbari, Frontiers 2026), not executed contracts. The opportunity should be narrowed to decision authority in contracts for decision-support systems, cross-nationally.urn:uuid:3b5a51af-e631-58a7-9b22-5a9123424112New research opportunity: RO-LD05-05 — Who holds decision authority in public-sector algorithm contracts, agency or vendor?2026-10-12T00:00:00ZIn the contracts public agencies sign for risk-scoring, profiling and case-routing systems, who is given authority over the choices that shape decisions (thresholds, input variables, retraining and updates, performance targets), what audit and documentation rights does the agency keep, and does this differ between systems built in-house and those bought from vendors?