+Article 27 Analyse d’impact des systèmes d’IA à haut risque sur les droits fondamentaux
---+Article 27 1.
---+Article 27 2.
---+Article 27 3.
---+Article 27 4.
---+Article 27 5.

Article 27 Analyse d’impact des systèmes d’IA à haut risque sur les droits fondamentaux

-

1. Vue d’ensemble

,
Article 27 1.

Avant le déploiement d’un système d’IA à haut risque visé à l’article 6, paragraphe 2, à l’exception des systèmes d’IA à haut risque destinés à être utilisés dans le domaine visé à l’annexe III, point 2, les déployeurs qui sont des organismes de droit public ou des entités privées fournissant des services publics et les déployeurs de systèmes d’IA à haut risque visés à l’annexe III, points 5), b) et c), effectuent une analyse de l’impact sur les droits fondamentaux que l’utilisation de ce système peut produire. À cette fin, les déployeurs effectuent une analyse comprenant:

a) 

une description des processus du déployeur dans lesquels le système d’IA à haut risque sera utilisé conformément à sa destination;

b) 

une description de la période pendant laquelle et de la fréquence à laquelle chaque système d’IA à haut risque est destiné à être utilisé;

c) 

les catégories de personnes physiques et les groupes susceptibles d’être concernés par son utilisation dans le contexte spécifique;

d) 

les risques spécifiques de préjudice susceptibles d’avoir une incidence sur les catégories de personnes physiques ou groupes de personnes identifiés en vertu du point c) du présent paragraphe, compte tenu des informations fournies par le fournisseur conformément à l’article 13;

e) 

une description de la mise en œuvre des mesures de contrôle humain, conformément à la notice d’utilisation;

f) 

les mesures à prendre en cas de matérialisation de ces risques, y compris les dispositifs relatifs à la gouvernance interne et aux mécanismes de plainte internes.
Article 27 2.
L’obligation établie au paragraphe 1 s’applique à la première utilisation du système d’IA à haut risque. Le déployeur peut, dans des cas similaires, s’appuyer sur des analyses d’impact sur les droits fondamentaux effectuées précédemment ou sur des analyses d’impact existantes réalisées par le fournisseur. Si, au cours de l’utilisation du système d’IA à haut risque, le déployeur estime qu’un des éléments énumérés au paragraphe 1 a changé ou n’est plus à jour, il prend les mesures nécessaires pour mettre à jour les informations.
Article 27 3.
Une fois l’analyse visée au paragraphe 1 du présent article effectuée, le déployeur en notifie les résultats à l’autorité de surveillance du marché, et soumet le modèle visé au paragraphe 5 du présent article, rempli, dans le cadre de la notification. Dans le cas visé à l’article 46, paragraphe 1, les déployeurs peuvent être exemptés de cette obligation de notification.
Article 27 4.
Si l'une des obligations prévues au présent article est déjà remplie au moyen de l'analyse d'impact relative à la protection des données réalisée en application de l'article 35 du règlement (UE) 2016/679 ou de l'article 27 de la directive (UE) 2016/680, le déployeur peut, lorsqu'il procède à l'analyse d'impact sur les droits fondamentaux visée au paragraphe 1 du présent article, inclure des renvois aux sections pertinentes de cette analyse d'impact relative à la protection des données ou en intégrer les parties pertinentes dans l'analyse d'impact relative aux droits fondamentaux.
Article 27 5.
Le Bureau de l'IA élabore un modèle de questionnaire, y compris au moyen d'un outil automatisé, afin d'aider les déployeurs à se conformer de manière simplifiée aux obligations qui leur incombent en vertu du présent article. Ce modèle donne, le cas échéant, aux déployeurs la possibilité d'inclure des renvois aux sections pertinentes de l'analyse d'impact relative à la protection des données ou d'inclure des parties pertinentes de celle-ci dans l'analyse d'impact relative aux droits fondamentaux, conformément au paragraphe 4.

1.1 Références

1.2 Exigences identifiées

1.3 Normes associées

2. Exigences identifiées

Exigences

3. Normes associées

Normes
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Impact Assessment

Description

Mechanisms exist to assess the impact(s) of proposed Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) on individuals, groups, communities, organizations and society (e.g., Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA)).

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic AI impact assessment (documented impact on people, processes, decisions)
∙ AI governance program
∙ NIST AI RMF Map function

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

∙ Formal AI impact assessment for each deployed system
∙ AI governance program
∙ NIST AI RMF Map function

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

∙ AI impact assessment process aligned to NIST AI RMF
∙ AI governance program
∙ Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) for higher-risk systems

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

∙ Formal AI impact assessment program with independent review for high-risk systems
∙ NIST AI RMF Map function
∙ Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) process
∙ EU AI Act conformity assessment requirements (if applicable)

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

∙ Enterprise AI impact assessment framework (NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act)
∙ Third-party conformity assessments for high-risk AI (EU AI Act Article 43)
∙ Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) program
∙ Board-level AI impact reporting

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 assess the impact(s) of proposed AAT on individuals, groups, communities, organizations and society (e.g., Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA)).

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 Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV)

Description

Mechanisms exist to implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle of the AAT.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ AI TEVV checklist for AI tools (test accuracy, validate outputs, verify security)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV process for AI systems
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV framework aligned to NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ AI testing tools (e.g., IBM OpenScale, Great Expectations)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program
∙ NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ Third-party AI testing for high-risk systems
∙ AI testing integrated with CI/CD pipelines

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program (NIST AI RMF Measure function)
∙ Independent AI testing and evaluation for high-risk systems
∙ AI TEVV integrated with MLOps and CI/CD
∙ EU AI Act conformity assessment (if applicable)

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable AAT-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle 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 Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV)

Description

Mechanisms exist to implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle of the AAT.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ AI TEVV checklist for AI tools (test accuracy, validate outputs, verify security)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV process for AI systems
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV framework aligned to NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ AI testing tools (e.g., IBM OpenScale, Great Expectations)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program
∙ NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ Third-party AI testing for high-risk systems
∙ AI testing integrated with CI/CD pipelines

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program (NIST AI RMF Measure function)
∙ Independent AI testing and evaluation for high-risk systems
∙ AI TEVV integrated with MLOps and CI/CD
∙ EU AI Act conformity assessment (if applicable)

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable AAT-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle 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 Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV)

Description

Mechanisms exist to implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle of the AAT.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ AI TEVV checklist for AI tools (test accuracy, validate outputs, verify security)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV process for AI systems
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV framework aligned to NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ AI testing tools (e.g., IBM OpenScale, Great Expectations)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program
∙ NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ Third-party AI testing for high-risk systems
∙ AI testing integrated with CI/CD pipelines

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program (NIST AI RMF Measure function)
∙ Independent AI testing and evaluation for high-risk systems
∙ AI TEVV integrated with MLOps and CI/CD
∙ EU AI Act conformity assessment (if applicable)

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable AAT-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle 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 Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV)

Description

Mechanisms exist to implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle of the AAT.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ AI TEVV checklist for AI tools (test accuracy, validate outputs, verify security)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV process for AI systems
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV framework aligned to NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ AI testing tools (e.g., IBM OpenScale, Great Expectations)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program
∙ NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ Third-party AI testing for high-risk systems
∙ AI testing integrated with CI/CD pipelines

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program (NIST AI RMF Measure function)
∙ Independent AI testing and evaluation for high-risk systems
∙ AI TEVV integrated with MLOps and CI/CD
∙ EU AI Act conformity assessment (if applicable)

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable AAT-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle 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 Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV)

Description

Mechanisms exist to implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle of the AAT.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ AI TEVV checklist for AI tools (test accuracy, validate outputs, verify security)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV process for AI systems
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV framework aligned to NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ AI testing tools (e.g., IBM OpenScale, Great Expectations)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program
∙ NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ Third-party AI testing for high-risk systems
∙ AI testing integrated with CI/CD pipelines

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program (NIST AI RMF Measure function)
∙ Independent AI testing and evaluation for high-risk systems
∙ AI TEVV integrated with MLOps and CI/CD
∙ EU AI Act conformity assessment (if applicable)

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable AAT-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle 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 Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV)

Description

Mechanisms exist to implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle of the AAT.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ AI TEVV checklist for AI tools (test accuracy, validate outputs, verify security)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV process for AI systems
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV framework aligned to NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ AI testing tools (e.g., IBM OpenScale, Great Expectations)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program
∙ NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ Third-party AI testing for high-risk systems
∙ AI testing integrated with CI/CD pipelines

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program (NIST AI RMF Measure function)
∙ Independent AI testing and evaluation for high-risk systems
∙ AI TEVV integrated with MLOps and CI/CD
∙ EU AI Act conformity assessment (if applicable)

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable AAT-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle 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 Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV)

Description

Mechanisms exist to implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle of the AAT.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ AI TEVV checklist for AI tools (test accuracy, validate outputs, verify security)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV process for AI systems
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV framework aligned to NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ AI testing tools (e.g., IBM OpenScale, Great Expectations)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program
∙ NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ Third-party AI testing for high-risk systems
∙ AI testing integrated with CI/CD pipelines

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program (NIST AI RMF Measure function)
∙ Independent AI testing and evaluation for high-risk systems
∙ AI TEVV integrated with MLOps and CI/CD
∙ EU AI Act conformity assessment (if applicable)

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable AAT-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle 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 Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV)

Description

Mechanisms exist to implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle of the AAT.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ AI TEVV checklist for AI tools (test accuracy, validate outputs, verify security)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV process for AI systems
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Formal AI TEVV framework aligned to NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ AI testing tools (e.g., IBM OpenScale, Great Expectations)
∙ AI governance program

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program
∙ NIST AI RMF Measure function
∙ Third-party AI testing for high-risk systems
∙ AI testing integrated with CI/CD pipelines

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

∙ Information Assurance (IA) Program
∙ Enterprise AI TEVV program (NIST AI RMF Measure function)
∙ Independent AI testing and evaluation for high-risk systems
∙ AI TEVV integrated with MLOps and CI/CD
∙ EU AI Act conformity assessment (if applicable)

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 implement Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) practices to enable AAT-related security, resilience and compliance-related conformity testing throughout the lifecycle 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 TEVV Reporting

Description

Mechanisms exist to report the status and results of Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) to relevant stakeholders, including governing bodies, as required.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Report AI testing results to management

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

∙ Document and communicate AI test results to stakeholders

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

∙ Formal AI TEVV reporting process
∙ Standardized reporting templates

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

∙ AI TEVV reporting program
∙ Regular stakeholder briefings
∙ Findings tracking

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

∙ Enterprise AI TEVV reporting framework
∙ Automated test result dashboards
∙ Board-level AI risk reporting

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 the status and results of Artificial Intelligence Test, Evaluation, Validation & Verification (AI TEVV) to relevant stakeholders, including governing bodies, 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.