---
id: ch12-dashboard-monaghan
type: spine
title: "Filling the ethics tracker for County Monaghan"
readingTime: 2
standalone: true
core: false
teaser: "Monaghan's own AI story, row by row through the ethics tracker: what the public record shows, and what the pilot still has to answer."
parent: null
diagram: null
status: accepted
concept: ai-ethics-dashboard
lang: en
lens: ireland
depth: standard
formalism: none
visuality: balanced
lengthBand: standard
genre: worked-example
state: edited
carriers: prose|table
---

The Monaghan pilot submitted one **"AI in Action for My Region"** story, filed under the **Stakeholder Co-Creation** principle. Here it is put through the [ethics tracker](#c/ai-ethics-dashboard) row by row. The ratings are left blank on purpose: only the pilot can give them.

## The story in brief (D2.3 §2.8, Story 6)

The team began with a **desk study of the circular economy in Monaghan**, using the Advisor to map local challenges, relevant policies and stakeholders. It shared a roadmap at a **co-creation workshop with over 20 regional stakeholders** from business, education and local government. The Advisor then helped analyse the feedback, identify funding opportunities and develop **three EU project proposals**, and it helped define the interventions and actions of Monaghan's [Regional Action Plan](#c/regional-action-plan) for the circular economy. In parallel, the Outreach project GREEN scoped circular business opportunities and **mobilised 23 key stakeholders, 21 of them SMEs** (D6.3).

## Row by row

| Principle | Evidence on the public record | Still for the pilot to answer |
|---|---|---|
| Stakeholder Co-Creation | Workshop with 20+ stakeholders; RAP actions built on their input | How the Advisor's drafts were changed after the workshop |
| Multi-Actor Involvement | Business, education, local government; GREEN reached 21 SMEs | Where civil society sat at the table |
| Transparency & Explainability | Not described in the story | How participants saw which sources the Advisor used |
| Iterative Feedback | Advisor used to analyse workshop feedback | Whether stakeholders saw and corrected the result |
| Ethical & Responsible Use | Not described | How errors and bias in AI drafts were caught |
| Capacity Building | Not described | Whether stakeholders were trained to use or question the tool |
| Inclusive Policy Design | Community priorities captured in the RAP | Which groups were missing |
| Gender Equality & Social Justice | No disaggregated figures in the story | Participation by gender and other indicators |

## What the exercise shows

One honest story fills two or three rows well and leaves the rest open. That is the point of the template: the empty cells are the pilot's to-do list. D2.3's own sample Monaghan row, a **fictionalised** illustration, marks ethical use as "needs flagging bias issues". The real story gives no evidence either way, so the row stays open until the pilot describes its checks.

**Sources:**
- D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §2.8 Actual Pilot Stories (Story 6, Monaghan); Template 2 Pilot Input Form for Ethics Dashboard (Table 70); §2.7 Potential pilot stories (fictionalised) — [PDF](https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf)
- D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §4.2.3 Added value for pilot regions (GREEN) — [PDF](https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf)