+Член 26 Задължения на внедрителите на високорискови системи с ИИ
---+Член 26 1.
---+Член 26 2.
---+Член 26 3.
---+Член 26 4.
---+Член 26 5.
---+Член 26 6.
---+Член 26 7.
---+Член 26 8.
---+Член 26 9.
---+Член 26 10.
---+Член 26 11.
---+Член 26 12.

Член 26 Задължения на внедрителите на високорискови системи с ИИ

-

1. Преглед

,
Член 26 1.
Внедрителите на високорискови системи с ИИ предприемат подходящи технически и организационни мерки, за да гарантират, че използват тези системи в съответствие с придружаващите ги инструкции за употреба съгласно параграфи 3 и 6.
Член 26 2.
Внедрителите възлагат упражняването на човешки контрол на физически лица, които имат необходимата компетентност и авторитет и са преминали необходимото обучение, както и се ползват с необходимата подкрепа.
Член 26 3.
Задълженията, установени в параграфи 1 и 2, не засягат други задължения на внедрителите съгласно правото на Съюза или националното право и свободата на внедрителите да организират собствените си ресурси и дейности с цел изпълнение на мерките за упражняване на човешки контрол, посочени от доставчика.
Член 26 4.
Без да се засягат параграфи 1 и 2, доколкото внедрителят упражнява контрол върху входящите данни, той гарантира, че тези входящи данни са подходящи и достатъчно представителни с оглед на предназначението на високорисковата система с ИИ.
Член 26 5.
Внедрителите наблюдават функционирането на високорисковата система с ИИ въз основа на инструкциите за употреба и, когато е необходимо, уведомяват доставчиците в съответствие с член 72. Когато внедрителите имат основание да считат, че в резултат от използването на високорисковата система с ИИ в съответствие с инструкциите тази система на ИИ може да породи риск по смисъла на член 79, параграф 1, те информират без ненужно забавяне доставчика или дистрибутора и съответния орган за надзор на пазара и спират използването на системата. При установяване на сериозен инцидент внедрителите също така незабавно информират за този инцидент първо доставчика, а след това вносителя или дистрибутора и съответните органи за надзор на пазара. В случай че внедрителят не може да се свърже с доставчика, член 73 се прилага mutatis mutandis. Това задължение не обхваща чувствителни оперативни данни на внедрителите на системи с ИИ, които са правоохранителни органи.

За внедрителите, които са финансови институции, спрямо които се прилагат изисквания по отношение на тяхното вътрешно управление, мерки или процеси съгласно правото на Съюза в областта на финансовите услуги, задължението за мониторинг, установено в първа алинея, се счита за изпълнено чрез съответствието с правилата за мерките за вътрешно управление, процесите и механизмите съгласно съответното право в областта на финансовите услуги.
Член 26 6.
Внедрителите на високорискови системи с ИИ съхраняват записите, генерирани автоматично от високорисковата система с ИИ, доколкото тези записи са под техен контрол, за срок, който е съобразен с предназначението на високорисковата система с ИИ и който е най-малко шест месеца, освен ако в приложимото право на Съюза или национално право, по-специално в правото на Съюза относно защитата на личните данни, не е предвидено друго.

Внедрителите, които са финансови институции, спрямо които се прилагат изисквания по отношение на тяхното вътрешно управление, мерки или процеси съгласно правото на Съюза в областта на финансовите услуги, поддържат записите като част от документацията, съхранявана съгласно съответното право на Съюза в областта на финансовите услуги.
Член 26 7.
Преди пускането в действие или използването на високорискова система с ИИ на работното място внедрителите, които са работодатели, информират представителите на работниците и засегнатите работници, че спрямо тях се използва високорисковата система с ИИ. Тази информация се предоставя, когато е приложимо, в съответствие с правилата и процедурите, установени в правото на Съюза и националното право и практика относно информирането на работниците и техните представители.
Член 26 8.
Внедрителите на високорискови системи с ИИ, които са публични органи или институции, органи, служби или агенции на Съюза, спазват задълженията за регистрация, посочени в член 49. Когато внедрителите установят, че високорисковата система с ИИ, която възнамеряват да използват, не е регистрирана в базата данни на ЕС, посочена в член 71, те не използват тази система и информират за това доставчика или дистрибутора.
Член 26 9.
Когато е приложимо, внедрителите на високорискови системи с ИИ използват информацията, предоставена съгласно член 13 от настоящия регламент, за да спазят задължението си за извършване на оценка на въздействието по отношение на защитата на данните съгласно член 35 от Регламент (ЕС) 2016/679 или член 27 от Директива (ЕС) 2016/680.
Член 26 10.
Без да се засяга Директива (ЕС) 2016/680, в рамките на разследване за целево издирване на лице, което е заподозряно или осъдено за извършването на престъпление, внедрителят на високорискова система с ИИ за последваща дистанционна биометрична идентификация иска -предварително или без ненужно забавяне и след не повече от 48 часа - разрешение за използването на тази система от съдебен орган или административен орган, чието решение е обвързващо и подлежи на съдебен контрол, освен когато системата се използва за първоначално идентифициране на възможен заподозрян въз основа на обективни и проверими факти, които са пряко свързани с престъплението. Всяко използване се ограничава до строго необходимото за разследването на конкретно престъпление.

Ако разрешението, поискано съгласно първа алинея, бъде отказано, използването на системата за последваща дистанционна биометрична идентификация, свързана с исканото разрешение, се спира незабавно и личните данни, свързани с използването на високорисковата система с ИИ, за която е поискано разрешение, се заличават.

Високорисковата система с ИИ за последваща дистанционна биометрична идентификация в никакъв случай не се използва за правоохранителни цели по нецеленасочен начин, без да е налице връзка с престъпление, наказателно производство, действителна и настояща или действителна и предвидима заплаха от престъпление или издирване на конкретно изчезнало лице. Трябва да се гарантира, че правоохранителните органи не могат да вземат решение, пораждащо неблагоприятни правни последици за дадено лице, единствено въз основа на резултата от тези системи за последваща дистанционна биометрична идентификация.

Настоящият параграф не засяга член 9 от Регламент (ЕС) 2016/679 и член 10 от Директива (ЕС) 2016/680 относно обработването на биометрични данни.

Независимо от целта или внедрителя, всяко използване на такива високорискови системи с ИИ се документира в съответната полицейска преписка и се предоставя на съответния орган за надзор на пазара и на националния орган за защита на данните при поискване, като при това се изключва разкриването на чувствителни оперативни данни, свързани с правоохранителната дейност. Настоящата алинея не засяга правомощията, предоставени на надзорните органи съгласно Директива (ЕС) 2016/680.

Внедрителите представят на съответните органи за надзор на пазара и на националните органи за защита на данните годишни доклади относно използването от своя страна на системи за последваща дистанционна биометрична идентификация, като при това се изключва разкриването на чувствителни оперативни данни, свързани с правоохранителната дейност. Докладите могат да бъдат обобщени, за да обхванат повече от едно внедряване.

Държавите членки могат да въведат, в съответствие с правото на Съюза, по-ограничителни законови разпоредби относно използването на системи за последваща дистанционна биометрична идентификация.
Член 26 11.
Без да се засяга член 50 от настоящия регламент, внедрителите на високорискови системи с ИИ, посочени в приложение III, които вземат решения или подпомагат вземането на решения, свързани с физически лица, информират тези лица, че спрямо тях се използва високорискова система с ИИ. За високорисковите системи с ИИ, използвани за правоохранителни цели, се прилага член 13 от Директива (ЕС) 2016/680.
Член 26 12.
Внедрителите си сътрудничат със съответните компетентни органи при всяко действие, предприето от тези органи във връзка с високорисковата система с ИИ, за да приложат настоящия регламент.

1.1 Препратки

1.2 Идентифицирани изисквания

1.3 Свързани стандарти

2. Идентифицирани изисквания

Изисквания

3. Свързани стандарти

Стандарти
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Deployment

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure the deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) includes appropriate technical and organizational measures so that AAT are used in accordance with the AAT developer-provided instructions.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Deploy AI tools only for documented, approved purposes

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ AI deployment approval process
∙ Document intended use and technical measures

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal AI deployment policy
∙ Technical and organizational measures for AI deployment

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI deployment governance program
∙ Formal approval workflows
∙ Post-deployment monitoring

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI deployment governance framework
∙ Automated deployment controls
∙ Continuous monitoring
∙ Regulatory compliance

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ AAT is regarded as a technology and governed by the entity's existing IT governance practices.
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide oversight of AAT-related activities. GRC functions are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure the deployment of AAT includes appropriate technical and organizational measures so that AAT are used in accordance with the AAT developer-provided instructions for use.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Oversight Functions Competency

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure the deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) assigns human oversight to individuals who have the necessary:
(1) Competence;
(2) Training;
(3) Authority; and
(4) Resources.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Train AI system operators on oversight responsibilities

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Training program for personnel overseeing AI systems

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal AI oversight training program
∙ Competency requirements for AI oversight roles

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI training and certification program for oversight personnel

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI training and certification program
∙ Role-based AI competency framework
∙ Continuous learning program

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure the deployment of AAT assigns human oversight to individuals who have the necessary:
(1) Competence;
(2) Training;
(3) Authority; and
(4) Resources.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Data Relevance

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure the input to Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) is relevant to the intended purpose of the AAT.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Validate that inputs to AI tools are relevant before submitting

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Policy requiring relevance checking of AI inputs

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal AI input validation policy
∙ Input relevance criteria documentation

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Input validation controls for AI systems
∙ Automated input filtering

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI input governance framework
∙ Automated input validation and filtering
∙ Data quality controls for AI pipelines

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure the input to AAT is relevant to the intended purpose of the AAT.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Irregularity Reporting

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure serious incidents and/or irregularities associated with the deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) are reported without delay to the:
(1) AAT provider;
(2) AAT importer or distributor, if applicable; and/or
(3) Local law authorities and/or governmental agency, as required.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Report serious AI incidents and irregularities to management

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Incident reporting procedure for AI irregularities

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal AI incident and irregularity reporting policy
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI incident response program with regulatory reporting integration

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI incident management platform
∙ Automated regulatory notification
∙ Legal and compliance integration

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure serious incidents and/or irregularities associated with the deployment of AAT are reported without delay to the:
(1) AAT provider;
(2) AAT importer or distributor, if applicable; and/or
(3) Local law authorities and/or governmental agency, as required.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Use Notification To Employees

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure employees, including workers' representatives, are informed about Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) deployments, prior to the use of the AAT in a production environment.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Inform employees of AI tools being used in their work

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Policy requiring employee notification of AI tools affecting their work

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal employee notification policy for AI deployments
∙ Communication procedures

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI transparency program for employees
∙ Works council/union notification as required

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI employee transparency framework
∙ Formal notification procedures
∙ Labor law compliance tracking

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure employees, including workers' representatives, are informed about AAT deployments, prior to the use of the AAT in a production environment.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Use Notification To Users

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are:
(1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and
(2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Inform users when AI is making or assisting decisions affecting them

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ User notification policy for AI-assisted decisions

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal user notification policy and procedures for AI decision support

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI user transparency program
∙ Automated user notifications for AI decisions

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI user transparency framework
∙ Automated disclosure mechanisms
∙ Regulatory compliance (EU AI Act, GDPR)

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure AAT that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are:
(1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and
(2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Event Logging

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) system event logging capabilities at a minimum provide:
(1) Start date, start time, end date and end time for each use;
(2) Database(s) against which input data has been checked by the system;
(3) Input data for which the search has led to a match; and
(4) Identification of individual(s) involved in the verification of the results.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Enable basic logging on AI/ML systems

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Configure event logging on AI systems
∙ Define log retention periods

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal AI event logging policy
∙ Centralized log collection

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ SIEM integration for AI system logs
∙ Defined logging standards for AI platforms

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise SIEM platform
∙ Standardized AI event logging schema
∙ Automated alerting for anomalous AI events

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure AAT system event logging capabilities at a minimum provide:
(1) Start date, start time, end date and end time for each use;
(2) Database(s) against which input data has been checked by the system;
(3) Input data for which the search has led to a match; and
(4) Identification of individual(s) involved in the verification of the results.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Registration

Description

Mechanisms exist to maintain a current registration for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) with the appropriate governing body, as required by statutory or regulatory requirements.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Determine whether any AI use requires registration (e.g., EU AI Act high-risk systems)

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Track AI registration obligations by jurisdiction in compliance checklist

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Register high-risk AI systems with relevant authorities as required

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI registration compliance program
∙ Track registration requirements by jurisdiction

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI regulatory compliance platform
∙ Automated registration tracking
∙ EU AI Act database registration compliance

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ AAT is regarded as a technology and governed by the entity's existing IT governance practices.
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide oversight of AAT-related activities. GRC functions are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Compliance (CPL) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to maintain a current registration for AAT with the appropriate governing body, as required by statutory or regulatory requirements.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

Description

Mechanisms exist to conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) on Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process and/or transmit Personal Data (PD) to identify and remediate reasonably-expected risks.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Risk Management (RSK) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).

Level 3 Well Defined

Risk Management (RSK) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with RSK domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) on Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process and/or transmit Personal Data (PD) to identify and remediate reasonably-expected risks.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Risk Management (RSK) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.