+Artículo 73 Notificación de incidentes graves
---+Artículo 73 1.
---+Artículo 73 2.
---+Artículo 73 3.
---+Artículo 73 4.
---+Artículo 73 5.
---+Artículo 73 6.
---+Artículo 73 7.
---+Artículo 73 8.
---+Artículo 73 9.
---+Artículo 73 10.
---+Artículo 73 11.
|
Artículo 73 Notificación de incidentes graves
-
1. Resumen
| Título |
Regulación |
|
Artículo 73 1.
|
Los proveedores de sistemas de IA de alto riesgo introducidos en el mercado de la Unión notificarán cualquier incidente grave a las autoridades de vigilancia del mercado de los Estados miembros en los que se haya producido dicho incidente.
|
|
Artículo 73 2.
|
La notificación a que se refiere el apartado 1 se efectuará inmediatamente después de que el proveedor haya establecido un vínculo causal entre el sistema de IA y el incidente grave o la probabilidad razonable de que exista dicho vínculo y, en cualquier caso, a más tardar quince días después de que el proveedor o, en su caso, el responsable del despliegue, tengan conocimiento del incidente grave. El plazo para la notificación a que se refiere el párrafo primero tendrá en cuenta la magnitud del incidente grave.
|
|
Artículo 73 3.
|
No obstante lo dispuesto en el apartado 2 del presente artículo, en caso de una infracción generalizada o de un incidente grave tal como se define en el artículo 3, punto 49, letra b), la notificación a que se refiere el apartado 1 del presente artículo se realizará de manera inmediata y a más tardar dos días después de que el proveedor o, en su caso, el responsable del despliegue tenga conocimiento del incidente.
|
|
Artículo 73 4.
|
No obstante lo dispuesto en el apartado 2, en caso de fallecimiento de una persona, la notificación se efectuará de manera inmediata después de que el proveedor o el responsable del despliegue haya establecido —o tan pronto como sospeche— una relación causal entre el sistema de IA de alto riesgo y el incidente grave, en un plazo no superior a diez días a contar de la fecha en la que el proveedor o, en su caso, el responsable del despliegue tenga conocimiento del incidente grave.
|
|
Artículo 73 5.
|
Cuando sea necesario para garantizar la notificación en tiempo oportuno, el proveedor o, en su caso, el responsable del despliegue podrá presentar inicialmente una notificación incompleta, seguida de una notificación completa.
|
|
Artículo 73 6.
|
Después de notificar un incidente grave con arreglo al apartado 1, el proveedor realizará sin demora las investigaciones necesarias en relación con el incidente grave y el sistema de IA afectado. Esto incluirá una evaluación de riesgos del incidente y las medidas correctoras. El proveedor cooperará con las autoridades competentes y, en su caso, con el organismo notificado afectado durante las investigaciones a que se refiere el párrafo primero, y no emprenderá acción alguna que suponga la modificación del sistema de IA afectado de un modo que pueda repercutir en cualquier evaluación posterior de las causas del incidente sin haber informado antes de dicha acción a las autoridades competentes.
|
|
Artículo 73 7.
|
Tras la recepción de una notificación relativa a un incidente grave a que se refiere el artículo 3, punto 49, letra c), la autoridad de vigilancia del mercado pertinente informará a las autoridades u organismos públicos nacionales a que se refiere el artículo 77, apartado 1. La Comisión elaborará orientaciones específicas para facilitar el cumplimiento de las obligaciones establecidas en el apartado 1 del presente artículo. Dichas orientaciones se publicarán a más tardar el 2 de agosto de 2025 y se evaluarán periódicamente.
|
|
Artículo 73 8.
|
La autoridad de vigilancia del mercado adoptará medidas adecuadas tal como se establece en el artículo 19 del Reglamento (UE) 2019/1020, en un plazo de siete días a partir de la fecha en que reciba la notificación a que se refiere el apartado 1 del presente artículo, y seguirá los procedimientos de notificación previstos en dicho Reglamento.
|
|
Artículo 73 9.
|
En el caso de los sistemas de IA de alto riesgo a que se refiere el anexo III, introducidos en el mercado o puestos en servicio por proveedores que estén sujetos a instrumentos legislativos de la Unión por los que se establezcan obligaciones de información equivalentes a las establecidas en el presente Reglamento, la notificación de incidentes graves se limitará a los mencionados en el artículo 3, punto 49, letra c).
|
|
Artículo 73 10.
|
En el caso de los sistemas de IA de alto riesgo que sean componentes de seguridad de dispositivos, o que en sí mismos sean dispositivos, regulados por los Reglamento (UE) 2017/745 y (UE) 2017/746, la notificación de incidentes graves se limitará a los mencionados en el artículo 3, punto 49, letra c), del presente Reglamento, y se hará a la autoridad nacional competente elegida para tal fin por los Estados miembros en los que se haya producido el incidente.
|
|
Artículo 73 11.
|
Las autoridades nacionales competentes informarán de inmediato a la Comisión de todo incidente grave, independientemente de han adoptado medidas al respecto, de conformidad con el artículo 20 del Reglamento (UE) 2019/1020.
|
,
1.1 Referencias
1.2 Requisitos identificados
1.3 Estándares relacionados
2. Requisitos identificados
Requisitos
| Fuente |
Requisito |
3. Estándares relacionados
Estándares
| Fuente |
Requisito |
|
SCF
|
Serious Incident Reporting For AI & Autonomous Technologies
Description
Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ 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 report any serious incident involving operational AAT to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
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
|
Serious Incident Reporting For AI & Autonomous Technologies
Description
Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ 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 report any serious incident involving operational AAT to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
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
|
Serious Incident Reporting For AI & Autonomous Technologies
Description
Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ 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 report any serious incident involving operational AAT to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
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
|
Serious Incident Reporting For AI & Autonomous Technologies
Description
Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ 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 report any serious incident involving operational AAT to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
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
|
Serious Incident Reporting For AI & Autonomous Technologies
Description
Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ 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 report any serious incident involving operational AAT to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
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
|
Serious Incident Root Cause Analysis (RCA) For AI & Autonomous Technologies
Description
Mechanisms exist to perform an investigation when there is a serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that documents a:
(1) Root Cause Analysis (RCA);
(2) Risk assessment of the incident; and
(3) Description of corrective actions taken, including measures implemented to prevent a recurrence of the incident.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Conduct post-incident review after serious AI incidents
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Root cause analysis process for serious AI incidents
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal RCA procedure for AI incidents
∙ Document findings and corrective actions
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI incident investigation program with formal RCA methodology
∙ Corrective action tracking
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI incident management platform
∙ Formal RCA framework (5 Whys, Fishbone)
∙ Corrective action management system
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
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 perform an investigation when there is a serious incident involving operational AAT that documents a:
(1) Root Cause Analysis (RCA);
(2) Risk assessment of the incident; and
(3) Description of corrective actions taken, including measures implemented to prevent a recurrence of the incident.
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.
|
|