+50. pants Dažu MI sistēmu nodrošinātāju un uzturētāju pienākums nodrošināt pārredzamību
---+50. pants 1.
---+50. pants 2.
---+50. pants 3.
---+50. pants 4.
---+50. pants 5.
---+50. pants 6.
---+50. pants 7.

50. pants Dažu MI sistēmu nodrošinātāju un uzturētāju pienākums nodrošināt pārredzamību

-

1. Pārskats

,
Nosaukums Regulējums
50. pants 1.
Nodrošinātāji nodrošina, ka MI sistēmas, kas paredzētas tiešai mijiedarbībai ar fiziskām personām, projektē un izstrādā tā, lai attiecīgās fiziskās personas tiktu informētas par to, ka tās mijiedarbojas ar MI sistēmu, ja vien tas nav pašsaprotams no tādas fiziskas personas viedokļa, kura ir samērā labi informēta, vērīga un apdomīga, ņemot vērā apstākļus un lietošanas kontekstu. Šis pienākums neattiecas uz MI sistēmām, kuras ir likumiski atļautas noziedzīgu nodarījumu atklāšanai, novēršanai, izmeklēšanai vai kriminālvajāšanai, ievērojot atbilstošus trešo personu tiesību un brīvību aizsardzības pasākumus, ja vien minētās sistēmas nav pieejamas sabiedrībai ziņošanai par noziedzīgu nodarījumu.
50. pants 2.
MI sistēmu, tostarp vispārīga lietojuma MI sistēmu, kuras ģenerē sintētisku audio, attēla, video vai teksta saturu, nodrošinātāji nodrošina, ka MI sistēmas iznākumi ir mašīnlasāmā formātā un ir iespējams atklāt, ka tie ir mākslīgi ģenerēti vai manipulēti. Nodrošinātāji nodrošina, ka viņu tehniskie risinājumi ir efektīvi, sadarbspējīgi, robusti un uzticami, ciktāl tas ir tehniski iespējams, ņemot vērā dažādo satura veidu specifiku un ierobežojumus, īstenošanas izmaksas un vispāratzītos jaunākos sasniegumus, kā tas var būt atspoguļots attiecīgajos tehniskajos standartos. Šo pienākumu nepiemēro, ciktāl MI sistēma pilda palīgfunkciju standarta rediģēšanai vai būtiski nemaina uzturētāja sniegtos ievaddatus vai to semantiku, vai ja tā ir likumiski atļauta noziedzīgu nodarījumu atklāšanai, novēršanai, izmeklēšanai vai kriminālvajāšanai.
50. pants 3.
Emociju atpazīšanas sistēmas vai biometriskās kategorizācijas sistēmas uzturētāji informē par sistēmas darbību fiziskas personas, uz kurām tā attiecas, un personas datus apstrādā saskaņā ar, attiecīgi, Regulām (ES) 2016/679 un (ES) 2018/1725 un Direktīvu (ES) 2016/680. Šis pienākums neattiecas uz biometriskai kategorizācijai un emociju atpazīšanai izmantotām MI sistēmām, kuras ir likumiski atļautas, lai atklātu, novērstu vai izmeklētu noziedzīgus nodarījumus, ievērojot atbilstošus trešo personu tiesību un brīvību aizsardzības pasākumus un saskaņā ar Savienības tiesību aktiem.
50. pants 4.
Tādas MI sistēmas uzturētāji, kura ģenerē vai manipulē attēla, audio vai video saturu, kas ir dziļviltojums, izpauž, ka saturs ir mākslīgi ģenerēts vai manipulēts. Šo pienākumu nepiemēro, ja lietošana ir likumiski atļauta noziedzīga nodarījuma atklāšanai, novēršanai, izmeklēšanai vai kriminālvajāšanai. Ja saturs ir daļa no acīmredzami mākslinieciska, radoša, satīriska, fikcionāla vai analoga darba vai programmas, šajā punktā paredzētie pārredzamības pienākumi ietver vienīgi šāda ģenerēta vai manipulēta satura esamības izpaušanu piemērotā veidā, kas netraucē izrādīt vai baudīt darbu.

Tādas MI sistēmas uzturētāji, kura ģenerē vai manipulē tekstu, ko publicē nolūkā informēt sabiedrību par sabiedrības interešu jautājumiem, izpauž, ka teksts ir mākslīgi ģenerēts vai manipulēts. Šo pienākumu nepiemēro, ja lietošana ir likumiski atļauta noziedzīga nodarījuma atklāšanai, novēršanai, izmeklēšanai vai kriminālvajāšanai vai ja MI ģenerētu saturu ir pārskatījis cilvēks vai tam ir veikta redakcionāla kontrole un ja fiziska vai juridiska persona ir redakcionāli atbildīga par satura publikāciju.

50. pants 5.
Šā panta 1. līdz 4. punktā minēto informāciju attiecīgām fiziskām personām sniedz skaidrā un atšķiramā veidā, vēlākais, pirmās mijiedarbības vai eksponētības laikā. Informācija atbilst piemērojamām piekļūstamības prasībām.
50. pants 6.
Šā panta 1. līdz 4. punkts neietekmē III nodaļā noteiktās prasības un pienākumus un neskar citus Savienības vai valsts tiesību aktos noteiktus MI sistēmu uzturētāju pienākumus attiecībā uz pārredzamību.
50. pants 7.
Komisija rosina un sekmē prakses kodeksu izstrādi Savienības līmenī, lai sekmētu ar mākslīgi ģenerēta vai manipulēta satura atklāšanu, atzīmēšanu un marķēšanu saistītu pienākumu efektīvu īstenošanu. Komisija, pilnībā ņemot vērā padomes viedokli, saskaņā ar 56. panta 6. punktā noteikto procedūru novērtē, vai minēto prakses kodeksu ievērošana ir pietiekama šā panta 2. un 4. punktā noteiktā pienākuma izpildes nodrošināšanai. Ja Komisija uzskata, ka prakses kodekss nav piemērots, tā var pieņemt īstenošanas aktu, ar ko nosaka kopīgus noteikumus minēto pienākumu īstenošanai saskaņā ar pārbaudes procedūru, kas minēta 98. panta 2. punktā.

1.1 Atsauces

1.2 Identificētās prasības

1.3 Saistītie standarti

2. Identificētās prasības

Prasības
Avots Prasība

3. Saistītie standarti

Standarti
Avots Prasība
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Output Marking

Description

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

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Label AI-generated content when distributing it

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

∙ Policy requiring labeling of AI-generated content

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

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

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

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

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

∙ Enterprise AI content marking framework
∙ C2PA standard implementation
∙ Automated content marking in AI pipelines

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to mark output from AAT in a machine-readable format so it is detectable as artificially generated or manipulated.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Use Notification To Users

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are:
(1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and
(2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Inform users when AI is making or assisting decisions affecting them

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

∙ User notification policy for AI-assisted decisions

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

∙ Formal user notification policy and procedures for AI decision support

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

∙ AI user transparency program
∙ Automated user notifications for AI decisions

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

∙ Enterprise AI user transparency framework
∙ Automated disclosure mechanisms
∙ Regulatory compliance (EU AI Act, GDPR)

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure AAT that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are:
(1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and
(2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Use Notification To Users

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are:
(1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and
(2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Inform users when AI is making or assisting decisions affecting them

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

∙ User notification policy for AI-assisted decisions

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

∙ Formal user notification policy and procedures for AI decision support

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

∙ AI user transparency program
∙ Automated user notifications for AI decisions

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

∙ Enterprise AI user transparency framework
∙ Automated disclosure mechanisms
∙ Regulatory compliance (EU AI Act, GDPR)

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure AAT that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are:
(1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and
(2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Use Notification To Users

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are:
(1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and
(2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Inform users when AI is making or assisting decisions affecting them

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

∙ User notification policy for AI-assisted decisions

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

∙ Formal user notification policy and procedures for AI decision support

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

∙ AI user transparency program
∙ Automated user notifications for AI decisions

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

∙ Enterprise AI user transparency framework
∙ Automated disclosure mechanisms
∙ Regulatory compliance (EU AI Act, GDPR)

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure AAT that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are:
(1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and
(2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.