Describe what happened in your own words. You don't need technical knowledge. There are no wrong answers here — only your situation.
Name of the government agency, company, or institution. You do not need the exact legal name.
Select the country where the decision was made. This helps the AI find the correct contacts and legal framework for your jurisdiction.
This determines which of the 7 available template languages you receive at the end of the assessment.
Describe the decision and its effect on you. Include anything you think is relevant. You can be brief or detailed — whichever feels right.
Stage 2 of 5 · Authority Claimed
What did the organisation say happened?
We now look at what the organisation claims about how the decision was made. This is the baseline we will test. Answer based on what you have been told — officially or informally.
Optional. You can paste exact wording or describe it in your own words.
Stage 3 of 5 · The Five Questions
We apply the doctrine's five questions to your situation
These are the questions the AI Non-Delegation Doctrine requires any consequential decision to be able to answer. Answer based on what you know — uncertainty is itself an answer.
1
Who made the final decision?
The doctrine asks whether you can identify — by name, role, or mandate — the human or entity that held authority at the moment the decision took effect. "The system" or "policy" are not sufficient answers.
2
Was there a duly qualified human involved at the moment the decision took effect?
Not involved at some point during the process — involved specifically at the moment of commitment, when the decision became binding on you. A qualified human means someone with the actual authority and competence to make this type of decision.
3
Could that person meaningfully change the outcome?
A reviewer who can only confirm — not reverse, modify, or escalate — is not exercising authority. The question is whether the person had real power to change what happened to you, not merely power to ratify what the system produced.
4
Were they sufficiently informed and competent to make this decision properly?
Even a genuinely qualified human can fail to exercise real authority if they lacked the information specific to your case, were working under excessive time pressure, or were reviewing without adequate context. Authority requires both competence and adequate conditions.
5
If not — who actually held authority?
If the previous questions suggest no qualifying human held authority, this question asks you to identify where control actually sat. This is often the hardest question — but naming it is what gives you something to act on.
Stage 4 of 5 · Failure Pattern
What the analysis finds
Based on your answers, the doctrine identifies which authority failure mode applies — and what that means for the decision you received.
Stage 5 of 5 · Your Summary
Your authority analysis
This summary is yours. Print it, save it, or share it with a lawyer, advocate, or ombudsman. It captures what you told us and what the doctrine finds.
Next step
What happens next — three steps
1
Download your template
Your template has two sections. Section 1 is a research prompt — fill in the organisation name and country at the top, then paste the whole thing into any AI. Section 2 is your letter — fill in the blanks using what the AI finds.
2
Run the research with an AI
Paste Section 1 into Claude.ai, ChatGPT, or any other AI system. The AI will search for the correct contacts, escalation bodies, and the legal framework for your country. It will cite its sources — if it cannot find something, it will say so. Do not accept blank or unverified fields.
3
Send your letter
Fill in Section 2 using the AI's research. Check the contacts are real before sending — a quick web search on the organisation name and the contact role is enough. Print, sign, and post — or send as a PDF by email. Keep a copy.
Before you send
Have to hand: any letter or notice the organisation sent you · the date of the decision · the outcome you received. The AI will ask for these when building the research.
Template is free. No sign-up required. Hosted on Google Drive — opens immediately.
This is not legal advice. Warrentor examines whether a decision about you was made by legitimate human authority. It does not predict outcomes, represent you in any legal proceeding, or guarantee any result. If you need legal representation, consult a qualified lawyer.
If you found the assessment useful — or if something didn't work — please tell us. You are among the first to use this. Your feedback directly shapes what it becomes.
