  Central to a number of scholarly, regulatory, and public conversations about
algorithmic accountability is the question of who should have access to
documentation that reveals the inner workings, intended function, and
anticipated consequences of algorithmic systems, potentially establishing new
routes for impacted publics to contest the operations of these systems.
Currently, developers largely have a monopoly on information about how their
systems actually work and are incentivized to maintain their own ignorance
about aspects of how their systems affect the world. Increasingly, legislators,
regulators and advocates have turned to assessment documentation in order to
address the gap between the public's experience of algorithmic harms and the
obligations of developers to document and justify their design decisions.
However, issues of standing and expertise currently prevent publics from
cohering around shared interests in preventing and redressing algorithmic
harms; as we demonstrate with multiple cases, courts often find computational
harms non-cognizable and rarely require developers to address material claims
of harm. Constructed with a triadic accountability relationship, algorithmic
impact assessment regimes could alter this situation by establishing procedural
rights around public access to reporting and documentation. Developing a
relational approach to accountability, we argue that robust accountability
regimes must establish opportunities for publics to cohere around shared
experiences and interests, and to contest the outcomes of algorithmic systems
that affect their lives. Furthermore, algorithmic accountability policies
currently under consideration in many jurisdictions must provide the public
with adequate standing and opportunities to access and contest the
documentation provided by the actors and the judgments passed by the forum.
