| As the foundation of automated administration, administrative algorithmic rules expand the conceptual scope of traditional norms and also trigger adaptability challenges in existing normative review mechanisms. From a systems theory perspective, the translation, deployment, and application of administrative algorithmic rules reveal a coupling relationship between the rule-of-law government and the digital government. Their inherent dual nature—incorporating both normative and technical attributes—leads traditional review paths into dilemmas when confronting the rise of algorithmic power, the digital divide, and the proliferation of risks. To address these issues, should proposes the establishment of dual review standards—"normative consistency" and "technical safety"—and systematically embeds these standards into record review, administrative review, and incidental review. By constructing a collaborative review mechanism that integrates internal and external efforts across the stages of rule translation, algorithmic operation, and dispute resolution, the paper aims to achieve a comprehensive remodeling of the traditional normative review path. |