发表机构
Delft University of Technology; Interdisciplinary Transformation University Austria; Leiden University; TU Delft; Inholland（代尔夫特理工大学; 奥地利跨学科转型大学; 莱顿大学; 代尔夫特理工大学; 因霍兰应用科学大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
针对DSA下超大型平台基本权利风险评估缺乏方法论的问题，提出决策树工具包，将脆弱性视为情境性，通过结构化流程和比例性测试提升评估的可审计性与系统性。
AI 中文摘要
欧盟《数字服务法》（DSA）要求超大型在线平台和搜索引擎（VLOPs/VLOSEs）评估并缓解系统性风险，包括对基本权利的实际或可预见的负面影响，并将这些评估置于独立审计之下。然而，如何识别、评估、取证和记录此类与权利相关的风险，在方法论上仍缺乏明确规定。我们通过引入一个基于决策树的工具包来填补这一空白，该工具包将DSA第34条第1款(b)项及相关审计要求转化为结构化的评估流程。该工具包将平台分解为系统的系统，并引导评估者完成DSA适用性判定、背景定义、子系统与利益相关者识别、风险识别、风险评估、报告和可视化等步骤。其核心设计贡献在于将脆弱性视为情境性和关系性的：工具包不将脆弱性归因于固定群体，而是询问特定的平台子系统和依赖关系如何可能使利益相关者处于脆弱地位。此外，它通过在比例性测试的结构内记录受影响的权利、干预及正当性分析，使与基本权利相关的判断具有可追溯性，同时涵盖感知与影响维度，包括严重性、范围、持续时间、可逆性以及实际后果。我们通过设计科学流程迭代开发了该工具包，该流程结合了源自文献的设计要求、三次跨学科专家研讨会（N=4；N=11；N=20），并使用两个DSA用户角色场景测试了框架设计。我们贡献了一个可扩展的方法论基础，使DSA下的基本权利风险评估更加简化、系统化、透明和可审计。
英文摘要
The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) requires Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines (VLOPs/VLOSEs) to assess and mitigate systemic risks, including actual or foreseeable negative effects on fundamental rights, and subjects these assessments to independent audit. Yet how such rights-relevant risks should be identified, assessed, evidenced, and documented remains methodologically under-specified. We address this gap by introducing a decision-tree-based toolkit that operationalizes Article 34(1)(b) DSA and related audit requirements into a structured assessment process. The toolkit decomposes platforms as systems-of-systems and guides assessors through DSA applicability, context definition, subsystem and stakeholder identification, risk identification, risk assessment, reporting, and visualization. A central design contribution is its treatment of vulnerability as situational and relational: rather than assigning vulnerability to fixed groups, the toolkit asks how particular platform subsystems and dependencies may place stakeholders in vulnerable positions. It further makes fundamental rights-relevant judgments traceable by recording the affected right, interference and justification analysis within the structure of a proportionality test, while also covering a perception and impact dimension including severity, scope, duration, reversibility, as well as practical consequences. We developed the toolkit iteratively through a design-science process combining literature-derived design requirements, three interdisciplinary expert workshops (N=4; N=11; N=20) testing the framework design with two DSA user persona scenarios. We contribute an extensible methodological foundation for making fundamental-rights risk assessments under the DSA more streamlined, systematic, transparent, and auditable.
