+Artikkel 50 Teatavate tehisintellektisüsteemide pakkujate ja juurutajate läbipaistvuskohustused
---+Artikkel 50 1.
---+Artikkel 50 2.
---+Artikkel 50 3.
---+Artikkel 50 4.
---+Artikkel 50 5.
---+Artikkel 50 6.
---+Artikkel 50 7.

Artikkel 50 Teatavate tehisintellektisüsteemide pakkujate ja juurutajate läbipaistvuskohustused

-

1. Ülevaade

,
Artikkel 50 1.
Pakkujad tagavad, et füüsiliste isikutega vahetult suhtlema mõeldud tehisintellektisüsteeme projekteeritakse ja arendatakse selliselt, et asjaomastele füüsilistele isikutele antakse teada, et nad suhtlevad tehisintellektisüsteemiga, välja arvatud juhul, kui see on piisavalt informeeritud, tähelepaneliku ja aruka füüsilise isiku jaoks ilmne, võttes arvesse asjaolusid ja kasutamise konteksti. See kohustus ei kehti tehisintellektisüsteemide suhtes, mida on seadusega lubatud kasutada kuritegude avastamiseks, tõkestamiseks ja uurimiseks või nende eest vastutusele võtmiseks, tingimusel et kolmandate isikute õiguste ja vabaduste kaitseks kohaldatakse asjakohaseid kaitsemeetmeid, välja arvatud juhul, kui sellised süsteemid on üldsusele kättesaadavad, et kuritegudest teatada.
Artikkel 50 2.
Tehisintellektisüsteemide, sealhulgas üldotstarbeliste tehisintellektisüsteemide pakkujad, kes loovad sünteetilist audio-, pildi-, video- või tekstisisu, tagavad, et tehisintellektisüsteemi väljundid on märgitud masinloetavas vormingus ja tuvastatavad kui kunstlikult loodud või manipuleeritud. Pakkujad tagavad, et nende tehnilised lahendused on tõhusad, koostalitlusvõimelised, töökindlad ja usaldusväärsed, niivõrd kui see on tehniliselt teostatav, võttes arvesse eri liiki sisu eripära ja piiranguid, rakendamise kulusid ja tehnika üldtunnustatud taset, mis võib olla kajastatud asjakohastes tehnilistes standardites. Seda kohustust ei kohaldata, kui tehisintellektisüsteemid täidavad standardse redigeerimise abifunktsiooni või ei muuda oluliselt juurutaja esitatud sisendandmeid või nende semantikat või kui see on seadusega lubatud kuritegude avastamiseks, tõkestamiseks, uurimiseks või nende eest vastutusele võtmiseks.
Artikkel 50 3.
Emotsioonituvastussüsteemi või biomeetrilise liigitamise süsteemi juurutajad annavad süsteemi tööst teada füüsilistele isikutele, kes selle süsteemiga kokku puutuvad, ning töötlevad vajaduse korral isikuandmeid kooskõlas määrustega (EL) 2016/679 ja (EL) 2018/1725 ning direktiiviga (EL) 2016/680. Seda kohustust ei kohaldata biomeetriliseks liigitamiseks ja emotsioonide tuvastamiseks kasutatavate tehisintellektisüsteemide suhtes, mida on seadusega lubatud kasutada kuritegude avastamiseks, tõkestamiseks või uurimiseks, tingimusel et kolmandate isikute õiguste ja vabaduste kaitseks kohaldatakse asjakohaseid kaitsemeetmeid ja kooskõlas liidu õigusega.
Artikkel 50 4.
Sellise tehisintellektisüsteemi juurutajad, mis loob või manipuleerib pildi-, audio- või videosisu, mis kujutab endast süvavõltsingut, avalikustavad, et sisu on kunstlikult loodud või manipuleeritud. Seda kohustust ei kohaldata, kui kasutamine on seadusega lubatud kuritegude avastamiseks, tõkestamiseks, uurimiseks või nende eest vastutusele võtmiseks. Kui sisu moodustab osa ilmselgelt kunstilisest, loomingulisest, satiirilisest, väljamõeldud või samalaadsest teosest või programmist, piirduvad käesolevas lõikes sätestatud läbipaistvuskohustused sellise loodud või manipuleeritud sisu olemasolu avalikustamisega asjakohasel viisil, mis ei takista teose kuvamist või kasutamist.

Sellise tehisintellektisüsteemi juurutajad, mis loob või manipuleerib teksti, mis avaldatakse eesmärgiga teavitada üldsust avalikku huvi pakkuvatest küsimustest, avalikustavad, et tekst on kunstlikult loodud või manipuleeritud. Seda kohustust ei kohaldata, kui kasutamine on seadusega lubatud kuritegude avastamiseks, tõkestamiseks, uurimiseks või nende eest vastutusele võtmiseks või kui tehisintellekti loodud sisu on läbinud inimkontrolli või toimetuskontrolli ning kui sisu avaldamise eest kannab toimetuslikku vastutust füüsiline või juriidiline isik.
Artikkel 50 5.
Lõigetes 1–4 osutatud teave esitatakse asjaomastele füüsilistele isikutele selgel ja eristataval viisil hiljemalt esimese suhtlemise või kokkupuute ajal. Teave peab vastama kohaldatavatele ligipääsetavusnõuetele.
Artikkel 50 6.
Lõiked 1–4 ei mõjuta III peatükis sätestatud nõudeid ja kohustusi ega piira muude liidu või riigisiseses õiguses tehisintellektisüsteemide juurutajatele sätestatud läbipaistvuskohustuste kohaldamist.
Artikkel 50 7.
Komisjon julgustab ja hõlbustab tegevusjuhendite koostamist liidu tasandil, et lihtsustada kunstlikult loodud või manipuleeritud sisu avastamise, tähistamise ja märgistamisega seotud kohustuste tulemuslikku rakendamist. Komisjon, kes võtab täiel määral arvesse nõukoja arvamust, hindab artikli 56 lõikes 6 sätestatud korras, kas kõnealuste tegevusjuhendite järgimine on piisav, et tagada käesoleva artikli lõigetes 2 ja 4 sätestatud kohustuste täitmine. Kui komisjon leiab, et tegevusjuhend on ebapiisav, võib ta kooskõlas artikli 98 lõikes 2 sätestatud kontrollimenetlusega võtta vastu rakendusakti, milles määratakse kindlaks ühised õigusnormid kõnealuste kohustuste rakendamiseks.

1.1 Viited

1.2 Tuvastatud nõuded

1.3 Seotud standardid

2. Tuvastatud nõuded

Nõuded

3. Seotud standardid

Standardid
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Output Marking

Description

Mechanisms exist to mark output from Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) in a machine-readable format so it is detectable as artificially generated or manipulated.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Label AI-generated content when distributing it

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

∙ Policy requiring labeling of AI-generated content

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

∙ Formal AI content marking policy
∙ Machine-readable metadata for AI content

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

∙ AI content marking program
∙ Technical implementation of C2PA or similar standards

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

∙ Enterprise AI content marking framework
∙ C2PA standard implementation
∙ Automated content marking in 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 mark output from AAT in a machine-readable format so it is detectable as artificially generated or manipulated.

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 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 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.