+Article 73 Signalement d’incidents graves
---+Article 73 1.
---+Article 73 2.
---+Article 73 3.
---+Article 73 4.
---+Article 73 5.
---+Article 73 6.
---+Article 73 7.
---+Article 73 8.
---+Article 73 9.
---+Article 73 10.
---+Article 73 11.

Article 73 Signalement d’incidents graves

-

1. Vue d’ensemble

,
Article 73 1.
Les fournisseurs de systèmes d’IA à haut risque mis sur le marché de l’Union signalent tout incident grave aux autorités de surveillance du marché des États membres dans lesquels cet incident s’est produit.
Article 73 2.
Le signalement visé au paragraphe 1 est effectué immédiatement après que le fournisseur a établi un lien de causalité, ou la probabilité raisonnable qu’un tel lien existe, entre le système d’IA et l’incident grave et, en tout état de cause, au plus tard 15 jours après que le fournisseur ou, le cas échéant, le déployeur a eu connaissance de l’incident grave.

Le délai pour le signalement visé au premier alinéa tient compte de l’ampleur de l’incident grave.
Article 73 3.
Nonobstant le paragraphe 2 du présent article, en cas d’infraction de grande ampleur ou d’incident grave au sens de l’article 3, point 49), b), le signalement visé au paragraphe 1 du présent article est effectué immédiatement, et au plus tard deux jours après que le fournisseur ou, le cas échéant, le déployeur a eu connaissance de cet incident.
Article 73 4.
Nonobstant le paragraphe 2, en cas de décès d’une personne, le signalement est effectué immédiatement après que le fournisseur ou le déployeur a établi un lien de causalité entre le système d’IA à haut risque et l’incident grave ou dès qu’il soupçonne un tel lien, mais au plus tard 10 jours après la date à laquelle le fournisseur ou, le cas échéant, le déployeur a eu connaissance de l’incident grave.
Article 73 5.
Si cela est nécessaire pour assurer un signalement en temps utile, le fournisseur ou, le cas échéant, le déployeur peut soumettre un signalement initial incomplet, suivi d’un signalement complet.
Article 73 6.
À la suite du signalement d’un incident grave en application du paragraphe 1, le fournisseur mène sans tarder les investigations nécessaires liées à l’incident grave et au système d’IA concerné. Ces investigations comprennent notamment une évaluation des risques résultant de l’incident, ainsi que des mesures correctives.

Le fournisseur coopère avec les autorités compétentes et, le cas échéant, avec l’organisme notifié concerné, au cours des investigations visées au premier alinéa, et ne mène aucune investigation nécessitant de modifier le système d’IA concerné d’une manière susceptible d’avoir une incidence sur toute évaluation ultérieure des causes de l’incident, avant d’informer les autorités compétentes de telles mesures.
Article 73 7.
Dès réception d’une notification relative à un incident grave visé à l’article 3, point 49) c), l’autorité de surveillance du marché compétente informe les autorités ou organismes publics nationaux visés à l’article 77, paragraphe 1. La Commission élabore des orientations spécifiques pour faciliter le respect des obligations énoncées au paragraphe 1 du présent article. Ces orientations sont publiées au plus tard le 2 août 2025, et font l’objet d’une évaluation régulière.
Article 73 8.
L’autorité de surveillance du marché prend les mesures qui s’imposent, conformément à l’article 19 du règlement (UE) 2019/1020, dans un délai de sept jours à compter de la date à laquelle elle a reçu la notification visée au paragraphe 1 du présent article, et suit les procédures de notification prévues par ledit règlement.
Article 73 9.
Pour les systèmes d’IA à haut risque visés à l’annexe III qui sont mis sur le marché ou mis en service par des fournisseurs qui sont soumis à des instruments législatifs de l’Union établissant des obligations de signalement équivalentes à celles énoncées dans le présent règlement, la notification des incidents graves est limitée à ceux visés à l’article 3, point 49) c).
Article 73 10.
Pour les systèmes d’IA à haut risque qui sont des composants de sécurité de dispositifs, ou qui sont eux-mêmes des dispositifs, relevant des règlements (UE) 2017/745 et (UE) 2017/746, la notification des incidents graves est limitée à ceux qui sont visés à l’article 3, point 49) c), du présent règlement, et est adressée à l’autorité nationale compétente choisie à cette fin par les États membres dans lesquels l’incident s’est produit.
Article 73 11.
Les autorités nationales compétentes notifient immédiatement à la Commission tout incident grave, qu’elles aient ou non pris des mesures à cet égard, conformément à l’article 20 du règlement (UE) 2019/1020.

1.1 Références

1.2 Exigences identifiées

1.3 Normes associées

2. Exigences identifiées

Exigences

3. Normes associées

Normes
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.