The Human Attestation Protocol: Confrontation Clause Compliance for Automated Classifications in DAG-OR
Abstract
When an automated Modulign classification is offered as evidence in a criminal proceeding, the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment requires that the defendant be able to confront the witness against them. An algorithm cannot be cross-examined. This paper specifies the Human Attestation Protocol (HAP): the formal procedure by which a human witness provides the testimony necessary to satisfy Crawford v. Washington (541 U.S. 36, 2004), Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (557 U.S. 305, 2009), and Bullcoming v. New Mexico (564 U.S. 647, 2011) when automated classifications are offered in criminal proceedings. The protocol identifies three mandatory human roles—the Certifier, the Operator, and the Interpreter—specifies what each must attest to, maps each attestation to the constitutional and evidentiary requirements it satisfies, and defines the documentation that must accompany the testimony. The protocol also addresses the special case of fully autonomous (:A-level) classifiers and the limitations of the human attestation pathway for black-box systems.
Cite it
Gonzalez, V. (2026). The Human Attestation Protocol: Confrontation Clause Compliance for Automated Classifications in DAG-OR. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19726407