Scores, recommendations and automated processing
Working draft of 17 September 2026 · Effective date: unavailable
Draft to be completed or validated before publication. Entries marked “unavailable” will be replaced once validated.
What are these tools for?
Some MEG tools may extract information, flag inconsistencies, calculate an academic indicator or suggest opportunities. Automated calculation is not necessarily artificial intelligence.
The aim is to assist users and relevant organisations. No score guarantees skill, admission or hiring.
How they work and their effects
| Tool | Known inputs and general logic | Result, effects and points to specify |
|---|---|---|
| OCR | Automatic reading of text and tables from a submitted card, certificate or transcript | Pre-fill or extraction; possible errors on grades and identities. Engine, fields and validation before use: unavailable |
| MEG Verify/KYS | File review and, depending on pathway, school confirmation | Verification status and possible access to certain features. Checks, decision-maker, refusal and appeal: unavailable |
| Trust Engine | Search for duplicates or inconsistencies between file elements | Control alert; an alert does not prove fraud. Signals, thresholds and triggered restrictions: unavailable |
| APS | Academic data from transcripts, possibly extracted then verified | Score that may appear in the file. Formula, scale, weightings, normalisation, missing data, date and recipients: unavailable |
| Recommendations and matching | Matching profile, preferences and opportunity criteria | Order or selection of displayed offers/profiles. Dominant criteria, relative weight, used or unused behaviour, commercial influence and visibility: unavailable |
| Orientation test | Future feature mentioned; questionnaire and method not provided | No current use presumed. A dedicated notice must precede launch |
Example limit: a grade misread by OCR may skew APS; correcting the source data must allow verification and, if needed, recalculation. This example does not describe a real formula.
What must be explained before use
For each active tool, MEG states data used, its origin, main factors influencing the result and concrete effects. The score must state its scale, date and limits. Ranking may reduce visibility of an offer or candidate even without automatic rejection.
Is APS optional? Who sees it? Does it change ranking or eligibility? Does a missing score penalise an application? Are there automatic blocks? Which professional can cancel them? : unavailable.
APS formula and weightings are not provided and are not invented in this document. This section must be completed with understandable explanation before exposing the score to users or recruiters.
Choices and human review
Framework to be confirmed in the product: no final rejection, exclusion or significant refusal based solely on automated evaluation without complying with applicable legal regime and safeguards. Selection decision belongs to the company or school, which remains responsible for its own use of the score.
You may request explanation, correct information, state your view and challenge a result at contact@myedugabon.com. An authorised person reviews data and reasoning with power to change the decision; they do not merely repeat the tool’s output.
For optional consent-based features, you may withdraw consent. Controls, non-personalised search alternative and exact consequences: unavailable. Rights and response deadlines are in the privacy policy.
Limits and safeguards
Incomplete documents, reading errors, differences between grading systems and unsuitable criteria may produce inaccurate or unfavourable results. Human verification and update are needed when the result is challenged.
Reliability and bias testing, human review, version tracking, impact assessment and applicable APDPVP formalities: unavailable. Sensitive data must not indirectly support discrimination.
Profiles, messages and documents are not presumed used to train AI merely by being uploaded to MEG. Possible reuse by MEG or a provider; purpose, basis, retention and transfers: unavailable. A new purpose must be explained and legally framed before implementation.
Minors
Processing constituting profiling of under-18s remains disabled except under an exception compliant with article 193 and required APDPVP involvement. Neither parental consent nor an “educational orientation” label is enough to lift this prohibition.
For data, recipients, retention and hosting: privacy policy. For age restrictions: minors policy.
References: law n°025/2023, articles 66–69, 77, 81, 98–100, 175–187 and 193.