GS-1801 General Inspection, Investigation, Enforcement, and Compliance — existing vs. agent-built
General Inspection, Investigation, Enforcement, and Compliance
Non-criminal regulatory investigation, inspection, and enforcement across mission-specific federal programs.
No government-wide standardized assessment. Agencies use agency-specific questionnaires, writing samples, and structured interviews. Practice varies enormously depending on mission (food safety, aviation, consumer product, environmental, etc.).
Job analysis anchored to O*NET / MOSAIC + Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.), Agency-specific enabling statutes. Every item carries signed task → KSAO → item provenance. Gated by licensed I-O psychologist sign-off before any applicant sees it.
Build this assessment →Eight-dimension comparison
Each axis is scored 0–100 using the rubric in comparisonMetrics.ts. Existing numbers come from the researched record; agent-built numbers reflect the swarm's uniform quality gates.
Chance to Compete Act (Pub. L. 118-19) three-prong test
- §3(2)(A) Allows applicants to demonstrate job-related skills
§3(2)(A) — the assessment must permit an applicant to demonstrate job-related knowledge, skills, abilities, or competencies, not merely attest to them.
Existing: partialAgent-built: yes - §3(2)(B) Is based on a job analysis
§3(2)(B) — content must be derived from a current job analysis that identifies the tasks and the KSAOs required to perform them.
Existing: partialAgent-built: yes - §3(2)(C) Is not principally reliant on a self-assessment
§3(2)(C) — the assessment "does not solely include or principally rely upon a self-assessment from an automated examination."
Existing: partialAgent-built: yes
Technical KSAO coverage gap
Of the 6 critical technical KSAOs identified in the job analysis for this series, how many does each assessment directly measure (not self-report)?
Per-dimension detail
1 technical competency directly measured: Writing (where sample used).
14-agent swarm maps every task → KSAO → item; ≥90% of critical technical KSAOs directly measured, no self-report proxies.
DIF analysis: no; no public adverse impact study.
Per-item bias sensitivity review + pilot DIF (Mantel-Haenszel / logistic regression) + adverse-impact 4/5ths pre-deployment simulation.
No published validity evidence; no public technical report.
Auto-drafted 29 CFR §1607.15 packet: job analysis, content validity matrix (Lawshe CVR), technical report, signed audit log.
3 modalities: Self-report, Writing sample, Structured interview.
Blueprint enforces minimum 3 of 5 RFI modalities where content supports it (JKT + Work Sample + SJT / Simulation / SI).
Partial traceability — validation evidence exists but item-level provenance is not public.
Every item carries a cryptographically signed provenance record: task statement → KSA → criticality/frequency → item.
Three-prong test flags: (A) partial, (B) partial, (C) partial.
Three-prong compliance enforced at the blueprint gate: (A) skill demonstration, (B) job-analysis anchored, (C) ≤10% self-rating by weight.
mobile support unknown; VPAT status unclear.
Tailwind-responsive, Section 508 AA verified, Flesch-Kincaid target grade 9–11, accommodation paths pre-wired.
Aggregate score returned; sub-score breakdown and rationale generally not available to applicants.
Each score includes IRT theta + SEM + KSAO sub-scores + plain-English rationale (NIST AI RMF explainability).
Bias & fairness findings
Drawn from the researched record for this series. Severity follows EEOC / NCME Standards guidance.
- No differential item functioning (DIF) analysis
NCME Standards §3.17 recommends per-item DIF analysis by protected class. Agent-built pipeline runs Mantel-Haenszel + logistic regression DIF at every pilot.
- No public adverse-impact (4/5ths) study
29 CFR §1607.4(D) requires impact records. Agent-built pipeline simulates the 4/5ths rule pre-deployment and logs results to the audit trail.
- No public technical report
External defensibility review requires a public §1607.15 report. Agent-built runs auto-publish the technical report with the final assessment.
- Historical concern
The Chance to Compete Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-19) §3(2)(C) defines a Technical Assessment as one that "does not solely include or principally rely upon a self-assessment from an automated examination" — squarely aimed at this pattern
- Historical concern
OPM May 2025 Merit Hiring Plan directs agencies to reduce reliance on occupational questionnaires as the primary screening instrument