Digital, Virtual and AI-Supported Negotiation

Introduction

International negotiation has moved from the conference room to a connected ecosystem of videoconference platforms, collaborative documents, messaging applications, electronic signature services, customer-relationship systems and artificial-intelligence tools. This transformation is not simply a change of communication channel. Digital environments alter how parties establish trust, exchange information, manage time zones, create records, protect confidential information and determine whether an agreement is legally effective.

A negotiator working across borders must therefore combine traditional negotiation competence with digital literacy, cybersecurity awareness, knowledge of electronic contracting and the ability to evaluate AI-supported recommendations. Technology can increase preparation quality and access to information, but it can also amplify bias, expose confidential data, create misleading impressions of certainty and obscure responsibility for decisions.

The central principle of this chapter is that technology should support—not replace—human judgment, accountability and relationship management. Effective digital negotiation is simultaneously a communication process, an information-governance process and a risk-management process.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, students should be able to:

1. Explain how virtual and platform-based environments change international negotiation.
2. Design effective processes for videoconference, asynchronous and hybrid negotiations.
3. Identify risks involving cybersecurity, privacy, digital identity and electronic evidence.
4. Explain the principal legal and operational issues in electronic contracting.
5. Use AI responsibly for research, scenario generation and agreement analysis.
6. Evaluate AI outputs for bias, hallucination, confidentiality risk and lack of transparency.
7. Apply human-oversight and governance principles to technology-supported negotiation.

1. From Face-to-Face to Digital Negotiation

Traditional negotiation relies heavily on physical presence. Participants observe posture, pauses, eye contact and informal interaction before and after meetings. These signals can help build rapport and interpret ambiguity, although they are never perfectly reliable and may be culturally interpreted in different ways.

Virtual negotiation removes or modifies many of these cues. Audio delays can make interruption appear aggressive. Camera framing can hide gestures. Participants may be multitasking, consulting private advisers or communicating through a parallel chat. A meeting may involve several people who have unequal access to information or authority. In asynchronous negotiation, such as email or a platform-based tender, parties may not even share a common conversational rhythm.

Digital negotiation has several advantages:

• Lower travel and coordination costs.
• Easier participation by geographically dispersed specialists.
• Faster circulation and comparison of documents.
• Automatic records of messages, edits and approvals.
• Greater opportunity to include interpreters, technical experts and legal counsel.
• Access to data analysis and decision-support tools.

It also creates disadvantages:

• Reduced relational richness and weaker informal trust-building.
• Greater risk of misunderstanding tone and silence.
• Technical failure and unequal internet access.
• More opportunities for unauthorized recording or disclosure.
• Information overload and fragmented communication.
• Difficulty verifying identity, authority and the authenticity of documents.

The appropriate question is not whether digital negotiation is better than face-to-face negotiation. It is which communication mode best fits the parties, the issue, the relationship and the level of risk.

Synchronous, Asynchronous and Hybrid Modes

Synchronous negotiation occurs in real time, for example through videoconferencing or live chat. It supports rapid clarification and interactive problem-solving but can disadvantage participants working across time zones or using a second language.

Asynchronous negotiation occurs with time gaps, usually through email, document platforms or structured bidding systems. It allows reflection and consultation, but messages can become overly formal, delayed or strategically ambiguous.

Hybrid negotiation combines modes. A common pattern is asynchronous information exchange, a synchronous meeting for difficult issues, and an electronic signing process after final approval. Hybrid design is often superior because each stage uses the channel most suited to its purpose.

A useful planning question is: What must be immediate, what benefits from reflection, and what requires an auditable record? Immediate clarification belongs in a live conversation; carefully reasoned concessions may be better delivered in writing; approvals and final terms should be preserved in a controlled record.

2. Designing an Effective Virtual Negotiation

Preparation and Protocol

Virtual negotiations require more explicit preparation than many face-to-face meetings. Before the first session, the lead negotiator should establish:

• Participants, roles and decision-making authority.
• Time-zone conversions and acceptable meeting windows.
• The official communication channels.
• Rules for recording, screenshots, chat use and document sharing.
• Procedures for technical failure and reconnection.
• Confidentiality expectations and access permissions.
• The agenda, decision points and timetable.
• The method for confirming minutes and action items.

The platform should be tested using the actual devices and network conditions expected during the negotiation. Sensitive meetings should use organizational accounts, multi-factor authentication, waiting rooms and restricted screen-sharing rights. Participants should avoid public networks where possible and should confirm that confidential documents are not visible in the background or in screen notifications.

Managing Communication Quality

Virtual negotiators should use shorter speaking turns, explicit summaries and deliberate confirmation. Instead of assuming that silence means agreement, the chair should ask: “To confirm, is your team accepting this wording, or do you need further review?” Important points should be restated in writing after the meeting.

A strong virtual agenda distinguishes among:

1. Information exchange.
2. Exploration of interests.
3. Generation of options.
4. Bargaining and package construction.
5. Approval and documentation.

This separation reduces the risk that participants make an apparently minor concession before they understand the full package of issues.

Trust and Relationship Development

Trust online is built through competence, predictability, procedural fairness and appropriate personal connection. Opening with a short informal exchange may help, but forced informality can be culturally inappropriate. A negotiator should learn how participants prefer to communicate and should avoid treating camera use, response speed or directness as universal indicators of commitment.

Trust is strengthened when parties:

• Keep agreed response times.
• Explain delays rather than disappearing.
• Use consistent versions of documents.
• Correct errors promptly.
• Protect information received in confidence.
• Separate disagreement over proposals from judgments about people.

3. Platform-Based Negotiation and Digital Architecture

A platform-based negotiation uses a technological system to structure interactions. Examples include procurement portals, online marketplaces, contract-lifecycle-management systems, auction platforms and supplier-management systems. The platform may determine who can participate, what information is visible, how bids are submitted and how acceptance is recorded.

This architecture affects bargaining power. A platform owner may control access to data, impose standard terms, determine ranking rules and change the interface through which offers are made. Participants should therefore distinguish between the substantive negotiation—price, quality, delivery, liability and relationship—and the platform rules that govern the process.

Important questions include:

• Who owns the data generated by the negotiation?
• Can the platform operator inspect, reuse or sell negotiation data?
• Are ranking and recommendation algorithms explainable?
• Can a participant correct an erroneous profile or score?
• Does the system create a binding offer, an invitation to treat or merely a preliminary indication?
• What happens if the platform fails at a critical moment?
• Which jurisdiction and dispute-resolution clause apply?

Platform convenience should not be confused with neutrality. A ranking algorithm may privilege price over quality, speed over sustainability or established suppliers over new entrants. Such choices are commercial and sometimes political decisions, even when presented as technical settings.

4. Cybersecurity and Information Risk

Negotiation information can include prices, intellectual property, customer data, product designs, acquisition plans and legal strategy. Unauthorized access can destroy bargaining power before a contract is signed.

A practical security model considers confidentiality, integrity and availability:

• Confidentiality means that information is accessible only to authorized persons.
• Integrity means that information and documents have not been altered improperly.
• Availability means that authorized users can access systems when needed.

Negotiators should apply least-privilege access: each person receives only the access required for the assigned role. Other controls include multi-factor authentication, encryption in transit and at rest, secure file transfer, device updates, phishing awareness, access logs, retention rules and a tested incident-response plan.

Common threats include credential theft, malicious links, fake calendar invitations, compromised vendor accounts, ransomware, deepfake voice or video, and “business email compromise,” in which an attacker impersonates an executive or supplier to redirect payment or approve terms.

A payment instruction should never be changed solely on the basis of an email or chat message. Verification should occur through a previously trusted channel, using contact details already held in organizational records. For high-value transactions, dual approval and separation of duties are appropriate.

A Simple Risk-Prioritization Model

Organizations often prioritize risks using a qualitative matrix. A basic numerical model can also be used:

Here, R is a risk score, L is the estimated likelihood of an event, and I is its estimated impact. If both scales run from 1 to 5, the score ranges from 1 to 25. The model assumes that the scales are defined consistently and that multiplication is a useful approximation for prioritization; it is not a probability calculation and should not be treated as a precise prediction.

For example, if unauthorized disclosure is rated likelihood 3 and impact 5, R = 3 × 5 = 15. The organization may classify this as a high-priority risk requiring stronger access controls. The score does not prove that disclosure will occur; it helps compare risks and allocate attention.

5. Digital Identity, Authentication and Authority

Digital identity concerns how a system represents a person or organization and how others determine that the identity is genuine. Authentication answers “Who are you?” Authorization answers “What are you permitted to do?” These questions must not be confused.

A person may successfully log in to a corporate account but lack authority to approve a cross-border acquisition. Conversely, a senior executive may have authority but use an insecure or compromised account. Negotiators should verify:

• The identity of the participant.
• The organization represented.
• The participant’s authority to negotiate.
• The participant’s authority to bind the organization.
• Any limits on that authority.

Useful controls include corporate-domain verification, multi-factor authentication, verified organizational profiles, delegated authority records and written confirmation of representatives. Digital certificates and cryptographic signatures can support authentication and document integrity, but their legal effect depends on applicable law, certificate management and the facts of the transaction.

Identity verification is particularly important when dealing with new suppliers, agents, intermediaries or parties located in jurisdictions with weak transparency. A video call alone is not proof of identity because accounts and voices can be impersonated. Independent due diligence remains necessary.

6. Electronic Contracting

Electronic contracting is not merely the act of placing a signature image on a PDF. It involves formation, attribution, integrity, evidence and enforceability.

Formation and Attribution

The parties must still address the ordinary elements of contract formation, such as offer, acceptance, consideration where required, capacity, legality and sufficiently definite terms. Electronic systems may complicate the analysis because a click, automated response or platform action may be interpreted differently depending on the surrounding circumstances.

A contract should identify how electronic communications are attributed to a party. Relevant evidence may include login records, authentication methods, audit trails, timestamps, system-generated receipts, email headers and the parties’ subsequent conduct.

Electronic Signatures

An electronic signature may take different forms, including a typed name, a click-to-accept action, a signature image, a biometric process or a cryptographic signature. The appropriate level of assurance depends on the transaction. Low-risk routine transactions may use basic authentication; high-value or regulated transactions may justify stronger identity verification, tamper-evident records and independent witnessing.

The legal rules vary by jurisdiction. International transactions may be influenced by instruments and laws such as the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures and domestic legislation implementing principles of functional equivalence and technology neutrality. However, exclusions, consumer rules, sector-specific requirements, evidence rules and conflict-of-laws issues must be checked in the relevant jurisdictions. Legal advice is necessary for significant transactions.

Contract-Lifecycle Controls

A robust electronic contracting process should preserve:

1. The version submitted for approval.
2. The identity and authority of signatories.
3. The time and method of signature.
4. The final executed document.
5. Any incorporated terms and schedules.
6. Evidence that signatories could access and understand the document.
7. The retention and retrieval procedure.

Negotiators should also examine “battle of the forms” risks. A purchase order, quotation, platform term and supplier acknowledgment may each contain different standard clauses. Automated acceptance can unintentionally incorporate unfavorable terms. Contract systems should therefore identify conflicting terms before approval.

7. Artificial Intelligence in Negotiation

AI can support several stages of negotiation, but its role should be carefully bounded. Three useful applications are research, scenario generation and agreement analysis.

AI for Research

An AI system can help organize public information, summarize lengthy reports, identify possible interests and generate questions for due diligence. It may assist with language translation or compare market descriptions. However, users must verify sources, dates, jurisdictional relevance and factual claims. A fluent answer is not evidence of accuracy.

Prompts should specify the task, context, source restrictions, date range, output format and uncertainty requirements. Sensitive information should not be entered into a public model unless the organization has authorized that use and understands retention and training practices.

AI for Scenario Generation

AI can create alternative negotiation scenarios, such as a delayed shipment, regulatory change, currency movement or change in supplier capacity. Scenarios should be treated as exercises, not forecasts. Their value lies in testing assumptions and preparing responses.

A useful scenario should state:

• The initial conditions.
• The event or disruption.
• The interests affected.
• Plausible reactions by each party.
• Decision points.
• Information that would reduce uncertainty.

Human experts must assess whether the scenario is commercially and culturally plausible. Otherwise, the system may generate dramatic but unrealistic events.

AI for Agreement Analysis

AI tools can classify clauses, compare drafts, identify missing provisions and flag deviations from organizational policy. They may detect inconsistent dates, conflicting delivery terms, unlimited liability language or absent dispute-resolution provisions.

The tool should not be treated as a lawyer or final approver. Agreement analysis is vulnerable to context errors: a clause that appears unusual may be intentional, and a standard clause may be unsuitable for a particular jurisdiction. Every material flag requires human review against the full contract and transaction context.

8. AI Governance: Privacy, Bias, Transparency and Oversight

Privacy and Confidentiality

Before using AI, organizations should determine what data is collected, where it is processed, how long it is retained, whether it is used to train a model, and who can access outputs. Personal data may trigger privacy obligations concerning lawful basis, purpose limitation, data minimization, security, cross-border transfers and data-subject rights.

A sound rule is to provide the minimum information necessary. Names, account numbers, personal identifiers and commercially sensitive figures should be removed or replaced with labels where they are not needed for the task.

Bias and Fairness

AI systems may reproduce historical discrimination or encode assumptions about language, nationality, gender, region, creditworthiness or supplier quality. Bias can enter through training data, labels, model design, prompts and the way users interpret outputs.

For example, a supplier-ranking tool trained on past purchasing decisions may favor incumbent firms because historical buyers rarely considered new entrants. The output may appear objective while reproducing a path-dependent pattern.

Bias assessment should ask:

• Who is represented in the data?
• Which groups may be disadvantaged?
• Are proxy variables being used?
• Are error rates different across groups?
• Can a person challenge or correct the result?
• Is the recommendation being used for a high-impact decision?

Transparency and Explainability

Transparency does not require revealing every technical detail of a model, but users should understand the system’s purpose, inputs, limitations, confidence and role in the decision. A negotiation team should be able to answer: What did the system do? What data did it use? What assumptions shaped the output? Who reviewed it? What evidence supports the final decision?

Human Oversight

Human oversight must be meaningful rather than ceremonial. A reviewer needs sufficient expertise, time, authority and access to the underlying information to reject or modify an AI recommendation. Organizations should define escalation thresholds—for example, mandatory legal review for unusual liability provisions or human approval for any recommendation affecting a strategic supplier.

A practical governance cycle is:

Figure: A governance cycle for responsible AI-supported negotiation.

9. An Integrated Negotiation Workflow

A disciplined workflow can integrate digital tools without allowing them to dominate judgment.

Stage 1: Define objectives and constraints. Identify interests, reservation points, authority limits, legal requirements and confidential information.

Stage 2: Select the channel. Decide which issues require live discussion, written exchange, platform submission or formal approval.

Stage 3: Secure the environment. Verify participants, permissions, devices, document controls and incident procedures.

Stage 4: Research and prepare. Use reliable sources and, where approved, AI to organize information and generate questions. Independently verify material facts.

Stage 5: Negotiate and record. Use explicit summaries, version control and decision logs. Avoid treating an AI-generated draft as an agreed position.

Stage 6: Analyze the agreement. Check consistency, authority, incorporated terms, governing law, dispute resolution, data obligations, cybersecurity duties and termination rights.

Stage 7: Approve and execute. Obtain human approval, verify signatory authority and use an appropriate electronic-signature process.

Stage 8: Monitor performance. Track obligations, access rights, renewals, security incidents and changes in law or technology.

Applied Case: The Meridian–Solara Supply Agreement

This is an illustrative case.

Background

Meridian, a European medical-equipment distributor, is negotiating a three-year supply agreement with Solara, a Southeast Asian manufacturer. The parties use a videoconference platform, a shared contract workspace and an AI clause-comparison tool approved by Meridian’s legal department.

Problem

During negotiations, a Solara representative sends revised bank details through a new email address. At the same time, the AI tool flags Solara’s proposed liability clause as “standard” and ranks the supplier as low risk. Meridian’s procurement team wants immediate acceptance because a hospital tender has a short deadline.

Analysis

The payment change creates a cybersecurity and identity risk. It must be independently verified through a known telephone number or previously authenticated channel. The AI ranking is unreliable unless Meridian understands its data sources, date, criteria and error limitations. The phrase “standard” does not establish that a clause is appropriate for medical equipment, cross-border data processing or the governing law.

The team also discovers that Solara’s sales manager participated in negotiations but has no documented authority to sign. The shared workspace contains an older version of the technical schedule, creating a risk that the wrong delivery specifications will be incorporated.

Approach and Solution

Meridian pauses payment setup and verifies the bank details through Solara’s established corporate contact. It restricts access to the workspace, labels the current draft as the sole negotiating version and obtains a controlled technical schedule from both parties. Legal counsel reviews liability, product conformity, recall obligations, insurance, data protection, cybersecurity notification and dispute-resolution provisions.

The AI tool is used again to identify textual inconsistencies, but each result is checked by counsel. The parties agree that the sales manager may negotiate but that Solara’s authorized director must execute the final agreement. The electronic-signature provider records identity verification, timestamps and the completed document.

Outcome

The parties sign before the tender deadline. Meridian avoids a fraudulent payment and prevents incorporation of an obsolete specification. The final agreement includes a verified notice procedure, security obligations, a process for changing bank details, and a requirement to notify the other party of a cybersecurity incident within an agreed period, subject to applicable law.

Learning Points

1. Urgency increases, rather than removes, the need for identity verification.
2. AI labels and rankings are prompts for review, not conclusions.
3. Version control is a substantive legal and commercial safeguard.
4. Negotiating authority and signing authority may belong to different people.
5. Electronic contracting depends on evidence, process and governance, not merely a signature image.

Challenges and Limitations

Digital negotiation can intensify power imbalances. A large platform owner may impose terms on smaller participants. Automated procurement can encourage price competition while neglecting resilience, labor conditions or environmental performance. Cross-border data flows may conflict with privacy restrictions. Digital exclusion can disadvantage participants with limited connectivity, language support or technical expertise.

AI presents additional limitations. Models can hallucinate sources, misunderstand specialist terminology, produce outdated legal information and express uncertainty poorly. They may also create an illusion of neutrality. A human negotiator remains responsible for judgments about legitimacy, fairness, relationship, risk and consequences.

Organizations should maintain fallback procedures for system outages, disputed records and compromised accounts. They should also train staff in secure communication, cultural competence, data protection and the limits of AI. Periodic audits should test whether controls work in practice rather than merely appearing in policy documents.

Best-Practice Checklist

Before a digital international negotiation, ask:

• Have identity, organizational affiliation and authority been verified?
• Is the chosen channel suitable for the issue and risk level?
• Are confidentiality, recording and retention rules clear?
• Are documents stored in one controlled versioning system?
• Are access permissions limited and monitored?
• Has sensitive data been minimized before AI use?
• Are AI outputs verified against authoritative sources?
• Could the output disadvantage a group or reproduce historical bias?
• Is a qualified human responsible for the final decision?
• Can the parties prove what was agreed, by whom and when?
• Is the governing law, dispute forum and electronic-signature process appropriate?

Contemporary Developments

Important developments include increasing use of contract-lifecycle automation, digital identity wallets, real-time translation, AI agents that can prepare or exchange proposals, and cryptographic tools for document integrity. These developments may improve speed and access, but they raise questions about delegation. If an AI agent autonomously sends a proposal, was there authorization? If a platform changes its ranking algorithm during a tender, is the process still fair? If translation software changes the apparent meaning of a concession, which version governs?

Future negotiators will need to understand not only how to operate tools but also how to specify limits, audit behavior and preserve human accountability. Technical capability without governance can create faster failure. The competitive advantage will belong to organizations that combine efficient digital processes with reliable judgment, security and trust.

Chapter Summary

Digital, virtual and AI-supported negotiation changes the timing, evidence, power relationships and risks of international bargaining. Synchronous, asynchronous and hybrid channels should be selected according to the task, relationship and risk. Virtual effectiveness depends on preparation, explicit communication, trust-building, technical resilience and disciplined records.

Cybersecurity requires protection of confidentiality, integrity and availability. Digital identity processes must distinguish authentication from authorization and must verify both identity and authority. Electronic contracting requires reliable evidence of formation, attribution, integrity, signatory authority and final terms. AI can assist with research, scenario generation and agreement analysis, but its outputs may be inaccurate, biased, opaque or unsafe for confidential data.

Responsible use of AI requires privacy protection, data minimization, source verification, bias assessment, transparency and meaningful human oversight. The professional negotiator remains accountable for decisions, relationships and consequences. Effective digital negotiation is therefore not technology replacing negotiation; it is negotiation redesigned around secure systems, sound judgment and verifiable agreements.

Key Terms

Digital negotiation: Negotiation conducted through electronic communication technologies.

Virtual negotiation: Negotiation in which participants interact remotely rather than in the same physical location.

Asynchronous communication: Communication in which participants respond at different times.

Platform-based negotiation: Negotiation structured and governed by a digital platform.

Least privilege: The principle that users receive only the access necessary for their role.

Confidentiality: Protection against unauthorized access to information.

Integrity: Assurance that information has not been improperly altered.

Availability: The ability of authorized users to access systems and information when required.

Authentication: Verification of a user’s identity.

Authorization: Determination of what an authenticated user may do.

Electronic signature: Electronic data used by a person to sign or approve a document or transaction.

Audit trail: A record of actions, users, times and changes in a system.

Version control: A process for identifying, preserving and managing successive document versions.

Artificial intelligence: Computational systems that perform tasks commonly associated with human cognitive activity.

Hallucination: An AI-generated claim or source that is inaccurate or unsupported.

Bias: A systematic tendency that produces unfair or distorted outcomes.

Explainability: The extent to which a system’s output and reasoning can be understood.

Human oversight: Competent human review and control of technology-supported decisions.

Data minimization: Limiting data collection and use to what is necessary for a stated purpose.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. Distinguish synchronous, asynchronous and hybrid negotiation.
2. Why are authentication and authorization different?
3. State the three elements of the confidentiality–integrity–availability model.
4. Identify two risks associated with AI-generated negotiation research.
5. What evidence should an electronic contracting process preserve?

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain how virtual negotiation changes trust-building and communication, and propose methods for improving both.
2. Discuss cybersecurity controls that should be applied to a high-value international negotiation.
3. Explain the principal legal and operational issues in electronic contracting.
4. Evaluate the benefits and limitations of AI for agreement analysis.
5. Discuss why meaningful human oversight is necessary in AI-supported negotiation.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A supplier requests a change to bank details through an unfamiliar email address immediately before contract signing. Design a verification and response procedure.
2. An AI procurement system consistently ranks incumbent suppliers above new entrants. Analyze possible causes of bias and recommend governance controls.
3. Design a communication, security and documentation plan for a three-country hybrid negotiation involving confidential technical data and electronic signatures.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which communication mode allows participants to respond at different times?

A. Synchronous negotiation

B. Asynchronous negotiation

C. Face-to-face negotiation

D. Automated authentication

Correct Answer: B. Asynchronous negotiation

Question 2

What does authorization determine?

A. Whether a person is physically present

B. Whether a document contains a signature image

C. What an authenticated user is permitted to do

D. Whether a network is available

Correct Answer: C. What an authenticated user is permitted to do

Question 3

In the risk-prioritization model R = L × I, what does I represent?

A. Identity

B. Integrity

C. Impact

D. Information

Correct Answer: C. Impact

Question 4

Which practice best reduces the risk of fraudulent bank-detail changes?

A. Accepting the request if the email uses a company logo

B. Verifying it through a previously trusted channel

C. Forwarding it to all negotiation participants

D. Using the fastest available payment method

Correct Answer: B. Verifying it through a previously trusted channel

Question 5

Why should an AI-generated legal or market claim be independently verified?

A. AI outputs are always intentionally deceptive

B. AI systems may produce inaccurate or outdated claims

C. Verification removes the need for human judgment

D. Electronic contracts cannot contain factual information

Correct Answer: B. AI systems may produce inaccurate or outdated claims

Question 6

Which principle limits users to the system access necessary for their roles?

A. Functional equivalence

B. Least privilege

C. Technology neutrality

D. Open acceptance

Correct Answer: B. Least privilege

Question 7

What is a central purpose of version control in electronic contracting?

A. To make every draft legally binding

B. To prevent participants from communicating asynchronously

C. To identify and preserve the authoritative document version

D. To eliminate the need for signatory authority

Correct Answer: C. To identify and preserve the authoritative document version

Question 8

Which statement best describes meaningful human oversight of AI?

A. A person approves every output without reviewing it

B. A qualified person can understand, challenge and modify the recommendation

C. The AI system makes the final decision independently

D. Only the software vendor reviews the output

Correct Answer: B. A qualified person can understand, challenge and modify the recommendation

Question 9

Which issue is most directly associated with a supplier-ranking model trained on historical purchasing decisions?

A. Historical bias and path dependence

B. Improved physical connectivity

C. Automatic contract formation in every jurisdiction

D. Guaranteed confidentiality

Correct Answer: A. Historical bias and path dependence

Question 10

Which element is most important when selecting an electronic-signature process for a high-value transaction?

A. The visual attractiveness of the signature

B. The speed of downloading the document

C. Identity, authority, integrity and reliable evidence

D. Whether the document contains a company logo

Correct Answer: C. Identity, authority, integrity and reliable evidence