+Articolo 73 Comunicazione di incidenti gravi
---+Articolo 73 1.
---+Articolo 73 2.
---+Articolo 73 3.
---+Articolo 73 4.
---+Articolo 73 5.
---+Articolo 73 6.
---+Articolo 73 7.
---+Articolo 73 8.
---+Articolo 73 9.
---+Articolo 73 10.
---+Articolo 73 11.
|
Articolo 73 Comunicazione di incidenti gravi
-
1. Panoramica
| Titolo |
Regolamentazione |
|
Articolo 73 1.
|
I fornitori di sistemi di IA ad alto rischio immessi sul mercato dell'Unione segnalano qualsiasi incidente grave alle autorità di vigilanza del mercato degli Stati membri in cui tali incidenti si sono verificati.
|
|
Articolo 73 2.
|
La segnalazione di cui al paragrafo 1 è effettuata immediatamente dopo che il fornitore ha stabilito un nesso causale tra il sistema di IA e l'incidente grave o quando stabilisce la ragionevole probabilità di tale nesso e, in ogni caso, non oltre 15 giorni dopo che il fornitore o, se del caso, il deployer, è venuto a conoscenza dell'incidente grave. Il periodo per la segnalazione di cui al primo comma tiene conto della gravità dell'incidente grave.
|
|
Articolo 73 3.
|
In deroga al paragrafo 2 del presente articolo, in caso di un'infrazione diffusa o di un incidente grave quale definito all'articolo 3, punto 49, lettera b), la segnalazione di cui al paragrafo 1 del presente articolo è trasmessa immediatamente e non oltre due giorni dopo che il fornitore o, se del caso, il deployer è venuto a conoscenza di tale incidente.
|
|
Articolo 73 4.
|
In deroga al paragrafo 2, in caso di decesso di una persona, la segnalazione è trasmessa immediatamente dopo che il fornitore o il deployer ha stabilito, o non appena sospetta, un nesso causale tra il sistema di IA ad alto rischio e l'incidente grave, ma non oltre 10 giorni dalla data in cui il fornitore o, se del caso, il deployer è venuto a conoscenza dell'incidente grave.
|
|
Articolo 73 5.
|
Se necessario per garantire una comunicazione tempestiva, il fornitore o, se del caso, il deployer, può presentare una relazione iniziale incompleta, seguita da una relazione completa.
|
|
Articolo 73 6.
|
A seguito della comunicazione di un incidente grave a norma del paragrafo 1, il fornitore svolge senza indugio le indagini necessarie in relazione all'incidente grave e al sistema di IA interessato. Ciò comprende una valutazione del rischio dell'incidente nonché misure correttive. Il fornitore coopera con le autorità competenti e, se del caso, con l'organismo notificato interessato durante le indagini di cui al primo comma e non svolge alcuna indagine che comporti una modifica del sistema di IA interessato in un modo che possa incidere su un'eventuale successiva valutazione delle cause dell'incidente, prima di informare le autorità competenti di tale azione.
|
|
Articolo 73 7.
|
Al ricevimento di una notifica relativa a un incidente grave di cui all'articolo 3, punto 49, lettera c), l'autorità di vigilanza del mercato interessata informa le autorità o gli organismi pubblici nazionali di cui all'articolo 77, paragrafo 1. La Commissione elabora orientamenti specifici per facilitare il rispetto degli obblighi di cui al paragrafo 1 del presente articolo. Tali orientamenti sono emanati entro il 2 agosto 2025 e sono valutati periodicamente.
|
|
Articolo 73 8.
|
L'autorità di vigilanza del mercato adotta le misure appropriate di cui all'articolo 19 del regolamento (UE) 2019/1020 entro sette giorni dalla data di ricevimento della notifica di cui al paragrafo 1 del presente articolo e segue le procedure di notifica previste da tale regolamento.
|
|
Articolo 73 9.
|
Per i sistemi di IA ad alto rischio di cui all'allegato III che sono immessi sul mercato o messi in servizio da fornitori soggetti a strumenti legislativi dell'Unione che stabiliscono obblighi in materia di segnalazione equivalenti a quelli previsti dal presente regolamento, la notifica è limitata agli incidenti gravi di cui all'articolo 3, punto 49, lettera c).
|
|
Articolo 73 10.
|
Per i sistemi di IA ad alto rischio che sono componenti di sicurezza di dispositivi, o sono essi stessi dispositivi, disciplinati dai regolamenti (UE) 2017/745 e (UE) 2017/746, la notifica è limitata agli incidenti gravi di cui all'articolo 3, punto 49, lettera c), del presente regolamento, del presente regolamento ed è trasmessa all'autorità nazionale competente scelta a tal fine dagli Stati membri in cui si è verificato l'incidente.
|
|
Articolo 73 11.
|
Le autorità nazionali competenti notificano immediatamente alla Commissione qualsiasi incidente grave, indipendentemente dal fatto che abbiano o meno preso provvedimenti al riguardo, conformemente all'articolo 20 del regolamento (UE) 2019/1020.
|
,
1.1 Riferimenti
1.2 Requisiti identificati
1.3 Standard correlati
2. Requisiti identificati
Requisiti
| Fonte |
Requisito |
3. Standard correlati
Standard
| Fonte |
Requisito |
|
SCF
|
Serious Incident Reporting For AI & Autonomous Technologies
Description
Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ Legal and compliance integration
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to report any serious incident involving operational AAT to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
Serious Incident Reporting For AI & Autonomous Technologies
Description
Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ Legal and compliance integration
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to report any serious incident involving operational AAT to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
Serious Incident Reporting For AI & Autonomous Technologies
Description
Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ Legal and compliance integration
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to report any serious incident involving operational AAT to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
Serious Incident Reporting For AI & Autonomous Technologies
Description
Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ Legal and compliance integration
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to report any serious incident involving operational AAT to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
Serious Incident Reporting For AI & Autonomous Technologies
Description
Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ Legal and compliance integration
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to report any serious incident involving operational AAT to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
Serious Incident Root Cause Analysis (RCA) For AI & Autonomous Technologies
Description
Mechanisms exist to perform an investigation when there is a serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that documents a:
(1) Root Cause Analysis (RCA);
(2) Risk assessment of the incident; and
(3) Description of corrective actions taken, including measures implemented to prevent a recurrence of the incident.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Conduct post-incident review after serious AI incidents
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Root cause analysis process for serious AI incidents
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal RCA procedure for AI incidents
∙ Document findings and corrective actions
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI incident investigation program with formal RCA methodology
∙ Corrective action tracking
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI incident management platform
∙ Formal RCA framework (5 Whys, Fishbone)
∙ Corrective action management system
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to perform an investigation when there is a serious incident involving operational AAT that documents a:
(1) Root Cause Analysis (RCA);
(2) Risk assessment of the incident; and
(3) Description of corrective actions taken, including measures implemented to prevent a recurrence of the incident.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|