Proof of Notice: Documenting AEDT Candidate Notices

When DCWP Asks You to Prove It

An HR Director we hear about a lot looks something like this: a rejected candidate's attorney sends a letter claiming they were never told an automated tool screened their resume. Or a DCWP spot-check lands, and the request is simple — show the notice you sent, and show when you sent it. The HR team knows they send notices. They're fairly sure they've been consistent about it. But "fairly sure" isn't a record. The notice language might live in an offer-letter template, the send confirmation might be buried in a shared inbox nobody archives, and there's no single place that says which candidate got which notice on which date, by which method.

That gap — between we did this and we can prove we did this — is where Local Law 144 exposure actually lives for most employers. Sending the notice is the easy half. By the end of this piece, you'll know exactly what belongs in a proof-of-notice record and how to keep it clean enough to hand over without scrambling.

What Local Law 144 Requires — and What It Leaves to You

Local Law 144 sets three core obligations on employers using an automated employment decision tool on NYC candidates or employees: an annual independent bias audit, a public summary of the most recent audit results posted on the employer's website, and a candidate or employee notice delivered at least 10 business days before the AEDT is used, along with a way to request an alternative process or accommodation (Crowell & Moring LLP, 2023; Epstein Becker Green, 2023).

What the law does not hand you is a required notice-recordkeeping format. It tells you what has to happen and when. It doesn't tell you how to document that it happened — that part is on you to design and defend. This article covers the operational side of that documentation, not a legal opinion on your specific notice language or timing; if a notice dispute gets serious, that's a conversation for outside counsel, and DCWP is the authority to confirm current notice-format expectations. For the mechanics of the 10-business-day window itself, see our breakdown at the AEDT 10-business-day notice guide, and for what the notice content needs to cover, see Local Law 144 candidate notice requirements.

Building a Proof of Notice AEDT Candidate Documentation Record

A proof-of-notice record has two layers, and most employers only build the first one. Layer one is the notice itself — the language told the candidate an AEDT would be used, and offered an alternative process. Layer two is the evidence of delivery — a retained copy, a timestamp, a delivery method, and something that ties it to a specific candidate.

Layer two is what actually holds up under scrutiny. An email with a send timestamp and the recipient address attached is proof. A note in a shared doc saying "notices sent this week" is not. A job posting disclosure with a screenshot and a capture date is proof. A vague policy statement that "we always notify candidates" is not — and it's the kind of gap the Comptroller's office found repeatedly when it reviewed how the law has actually been enforced.

DCWP's own review found only 1 of 32 companies non-compliant — but when the state Comptroller's auditors reviewed the same 32 companies, they found 17. (Office of the NY State Comptroller, 2025)

That's not a data-entry error. It's what happens when "we sent it" isn't backed by a record anyone can independently verify.

The Fields Your Log Actually Needs

A workable proof-of-notice log doesn't need to be complicated. At minimum, each entry should carry:

• Candidate or employee identifier (a requisition number or applicant ID — never a score or ranking)
• AEDT name and vendor — which tool is in play for this notice
• Notice date sent and the decision/use date, so the 10-business-day gap is calculable at a glance
• Delivery method — email, portal notification, job posting language, mailed letter
• Confirmation artifact — a saved copy, a send-receipt, a screenshot with a timestamp
• Alternative-process request status — whether the candidate asked for one, and how it was handled

None of these fields score, rank, or evaluate anyone. They document that a required communication happened and when — an operational log, not a hiring decision.

Where the Record Usually Falls Apart

The most common failure isn't a missing notice — it's a missing trail. A 2024 academic review of 391 employers subject to Local Law 144 found that only 18 had posted an audit report and only 13 had posted a transparency notice (ACM FAccT, Wright & Muenster et al., 2024). That's the public-facing side of the same problem: the requirement existed, the documentation didn't reliably follow it. Notice recordkeeping tends to break the same way, just less visibly — nothing gets posted publicly when a single candidate's notice record is thin, so the gap sits quietly until someone asks.

It compounds under real deadline pressure. A hiring manager moves fast, a notice goes out through whichever channel is fastest that day, and nobody circles back to file the confirmation. Multiply that across a hiring season and the "proof" that exists is scattered across inboxes, applicant-tracking exports, and memory.

Turning This Into a Repeatable Process

The fix isn't a one-time cleanup — it's a log that gets a new row every time a notice goes out, before the next candidate shows up. Civil penalties under Local Law 144 run up to $500 for a first violation and $500 to $1,500 for each subsequent one, accruing per violation per day (Office of the NY State Comptroller, 2025). A missed or undocumented notice on one candidate is one violation. A pattern of missed notices across a hiring cycle, with no record to show otherwise, is a very different conversation — and one where "we're pretty sure we sent those" won't hold up on either side of it, DCWP's or your own.

Treat the log the same way you'd treat a payroll record: one entry per event, filled in at the time of the event, not reconstructed afterward.

Your First Action Item

You don't need to design a log from a blank sheet under deadline. Start with a working template — the Candidate Notice & Audit-Readiness Compliance Kit includes a proof-of-notice log built around the fields above, plus the notice-timing worksheet that pairs with it. It runs the recordkeeping operation around your notices; it doesn't perform your bias audit, send notices on your behalf, or make any determination about a candidate — that stays with you and, where relevant, your independent auditor.

For the fuller picture of how notice obligations fit into the rest of your Local Law 144 posture, see the compliance guide, and check pricing if you're comparing the kit against building your own tracker from scratch.