+53. pants Vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļu nodrošinātāju pienākumi
---+53. pants 1.
---+53. pants 2.
---+53. pants 3.
---+53. pants 4.
---+53. pants 5.
---+53. pants 6.
---+53. pants 7.

53. pants Vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļu nodrošinātāju pienākumi

-

1. Pārskats

,
53. pants 1.

Vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļu nodrošinātāji:

a) 

sastāda un pastāvīgi atjaunina modeļa tehnisko dokumentāciju, iekļaujot tā apmācības un testēšanas procesu un tā izvērtēšanas rezultātus, kas ietver vismaz XI pielikumā paredzēto informāciju, lai to pēc pieprasījuma iesniegtu MI birojam un valsts kompetentajām iestādēm;

b) 

sastāda, pastāvīgi atjaunina un dara pieejamu informāciju un dokumentāciju MI sistēmu nodrošinātājiem, kuri ir iecerējuši integrēt konkrēto vispārīga lietojuma MI modeli savās MI sistēmās. Neskarot nepieciešamību ievērot un aizsargāt intelektuālā īpašuma tiesības un konfidenciālu uzņēmējdarbības informāciju vai komercnoslēpumus saskaņā ar Savienības un valsts tiesību aktiem, informācija un dokumentācija

i) 

dod MI sistēmu nodrošinātājiem iespēju labi izprast konkrētā vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļa spējas un ierobežojumus un izpildīt savus pienākumus, ievērojot šo regulu; un

ii) 

ietver vismaz XII pielikumā izklāstītos elementus;

c) 

ievieš politiku, lai panāktu atbilstību Savienības tiesību aktiem autortiesību un blakustiesību jomā un jo īpaši lai identificētu un pildītu, tostarp ar modernām tehnoloģijām, tiesību rezervāciju, kas pausta, ievērojot Direktīvas (ES) 2019/790 4. panta 3. punktu;

d) 

saskaņā ar MI biroja nodrošināto veidni sagatavo un publisko pietiekami detalizētu kopsavilkumu par vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļa apmācībā izmantoto saturu.
53. pants 2.
Šā panta 1. punkta a) un b) apakšpunktā paredzētos pienākumus nepiemēro to MI modeļu nodrošinātājiem, kuri ir laisti apgrozībā ar bezmaksas un atvērtas piekļuves licenci, kura ļauj modelim piekļūt, to lietot, modificēt un izplatīt, un kuru parametri, tostarp svari, informācija par modeļa arhitektūru un informācija par modeļa lietošanu, ir darīti publiski pieejami. Šo izņēmumu nepiemēro vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļiem ar sistēmiskiem riskiem.
53. pants 3.
Vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļu nodrošinātāji savas kompetences un pilnvaru īstenošanā, ievērojot šo regulu, vajadzības gadījumā sadarbojas ar Komisiju un valsts kompetentajām iestādēm.
53. pants 4.
Vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļu nodrošinātāji var paļauties uz prakses kodeksiem 56. panta nozīmē, lai apliecinātu šā panta 1. punktā noteikto pienākumu ievērošanu, līdz laikam, kamēr tiek publicēts saskaņots standarts. Atbilstība Eiropas saskaņotajiem standartiem sniedz nodrošinātājiem atbilstības prezumpciju, ciktāl minētie standarti attiecas uz minētajiem pienākumiem. Vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļu nodrošinātāji, kas neievēro apstiprinātu prakses kodeksu vai neatbilst Eiropas saskaņotajam standartam, apliecina alternatīvus pienācīgus atbilstības nodrošināšanas līdzekļus, lai saņemtu Komisijas apstiprinājumu.
53. pants 5.
Lai veicinātu atbilstību XI pielikumam, jo īpaši tā 2. punkta d) un e) apakšpunktam, Komisija tiek pilnvarota pieņemt deleģētos aktus saskaņā ar 97. pantu, lai sīki izklāstītu mērījumu un aprēķinu metodiku nolūkā panākt salīdzināmu un pārbaudāmu dokumentāciju.
53. pants 6.
Komisija tiek pilnvarota pieņemt deleģētos aktus saskaņā ar 97. panta 2. punktu, lai grozītu XI un XII pielikumu, ņemot vērā tehnoloģijas attīstību.
53. pants 7.
Ar informāciju vai dokumentāciju, kas iegūta, ievērojot šā panta noteikumus, tostarp komercnoslēpumiem, rīkojas saskaņā ar 78. pantā noteiktajiem konfidencialitātes pienākumiem.

1.1 Atsauces

1.2 Identificētās prasības

1.3 Saistītie standarti

2. Identificētās prasības

Prasības

3. Saistītie standarti

Standarti
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Intellectual Property Infringement Protections

Description

Mechanisms exist to prevent third-party Intellectual Property (IP) rights infringement by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT).

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Legal review
∙ Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program

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

∙ Legal review
∙ Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program

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

∙ Legal review
∙ Steering committee
∙ Board of Directors (BoD)
∙ Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program

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

∙ Legal review
∙ Steering committee
∙ Board of Directors (BoD)
∙ Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program

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

∙ Legal review
∙ Steering committee
∙ Board of Directors (BoD)
∙ Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program

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.
▪ AAT is regarded as a technology and governed by the entity's existing IT governance practices.
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide oversight of AAT-related activities. GRC functions are assigned 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 prevent third-party Intellectual Property (IP) rights infringement by AAT.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) publicly disclose information with sufficient detail to assess:
(1) Content lineage; and
(2) Any transforms or modification of that data used for the output.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Disclose data sources used by AI tools in user documentation

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

∙ Policy requiring disclosure of AI training data sources

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

∙ Formal AI transparency policy
∙ Data source disclosure in user documentation

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

∙ AI transparency program
∙ Public disclosure of data lineage
∙ Model cards with data sourcing

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

∙ Enterprise AI transparency framework
∙ Automated disclosure generation
∙ Regulatory compliance tracking for AI transparency

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 Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) publicly disclose information with sufficient detail to assess:
(1) Content lineage; and
(2) The origin of data used by the AAT.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) include clear and concise documentation that is relevant, accessible and comprehensible to personnel implementing and maintaining the AAT that, at a minimum, provides:
(1) Contact details of the provider;
(2) Characteristics, capabilities and limitations of performance of the AAT;
(3) Errata from the AAT's initial conformity assessment;
(4) Details necessary to interpret the outputs of the AAT;
(5) Human oversight measures necessary to facilitate the interpretation of the outputs of the AAT;
(6) Computational and hardware resources needed to operate the AAT;
(7) Projected useable lifetime of the AAT; and
(8) A description of the mechanisms included within the AAT system to properly collect, store and interpret event logs.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Document AI implementation steps and configuration

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

∙ AI implementation documentation template

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

∙ Formal AI implementation documentation policy
∙ Technical documentation requirements

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

∙ AI documentation program
∙ Standardized implementation documentation templates

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

∙ Enterprise AI documentation platform
∙ Automated documentation generation from MLOps tools
∙ Model cards and system cards

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 include clear and concise documentation that is relevant, accessible and comprehensible to personnel implementing and maintaining the AAT that, at a minimum, provides:
(1) Contact details of the provider;
(2) Characteristics, capabilities and limitations of performance of the AAT;
(3) Errata from the AAT's initial conformity assessment;
(4) Details necessary to interpret the outputs of the AAT;
(5) Human oversight measures necessary to facilitate the interpretation of the outputs of the AAT;
(6) Computational and hardware resources needed to operate the AAT;
(7) Projected useable lifetime of the AAT; and
(8) A description of the mechanisms included within the AAT system to properly collect, store and interpret event logs.

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 Implementation Documentation

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) include clear and concise documentation that is relevant, accessible and comprehensible to personnel implementing and maintaining the AAT that, at a minimum, provides:
(1) Contact details of the provider;
(2) Characteristics, capabilities and limitations of performance of the AAT;
(3) Errata from the AAT's initial conformity assessment;
(4) Details necessary to interpret the outputs of the AAT;
(5) Human oversight measures necessary to facilitate the interpretation of the outputs of the AAT;
(6) Computational and hardware resources needed to operate the AAT;
(7) Projected useable lifetime of the AAT; and
(8) A description of the mechanisms included within the AAT system to properly collect, store and interpret event logs.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Document AI implementation steps and configuration

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

∙ AI implementation documentation template

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

∙ Formal AI implementation documentation policy
∙ Technical documentation requirements

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

∙ AI documentation program
∙ Standardized implementation documentation templates

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

∙ Enterprise AI documentation platform
∙ Automated documentation generation from MLOps tools
∙ Model cards and system cards

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 include clear and concise documentation that is relevant, accessible and comprehensible to personnel implementing and maintaining the AAT that, at a minimum, provides:
(1) Contact details of the provider;
(2) Characteristics, capabilities and limitations of performance of the AAT;
(3) Errata from the AAT's initial conformity assessment;
(4) Details necessary to interpret the outputs of the AAT;
(5) Human oversight measures necessary to facilitate the interpretation of the outputs of the AAT;
(6) Computational and hardware resources needed to operate the AAT;
(7) Projected useable lifetime of the AAT; and
(8) A description of the mechanisms included within the AAT system to properly collect, store and interpret event logs.

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 Product Conformity Governance

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure developed Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) conform to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, based on the product's and/or service's:
(1) Use case(s); and
(2) Geographic markets.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Identify laws/regulations applicable to any developed products (e.g., privacy, accessibility)

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

∙ Regulatory requirements checklist for product development
∙ Legal review before release

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

∙ Product compliance requirements defined at project start
∙ Compliance validation before release
∙ Regulatory conformity records

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

∙ Product conformity governance program (statutory, regulatory, certification requirements)
∙ Compliance gates in release management
∙ Conformity documentation (e.g., declarations of conformity)

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

∙ Enterprise product compliance program covering statutory/regulatory conformity (e.g., EU CRA, FDA, UL 2900)
∙ Regulatory affairs and product security integration
∙ Conformity assessment and certification management

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

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.

Level 3 Well Defined

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ 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 TDA 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 developed Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) conform to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, based on the product's and/or service's:
(1) Use case(s); and
(2) Geographic markets.

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 Product Conformity Governance

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure developed Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) conform to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, based on the product's and/or service's:
(1) Use case(s); and
(2) Geographic markets.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Identify laws/regulations applicable to any developed products (e.g., privacy, accessibility)

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

∙ Regulatory requirements checklist for product development
∙ Legal review before release

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

∙ Product compliance requirements defined at project start
∙ Compliance validation before release
∙ Regulatory conformity records

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

∙ Product conformity governance program (statutory, regulatory, certification requirements)
∙ Compliance gates in release management
∙ Conformity documentation (e.g., declarations of conformity)

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

∙ Enterprise product compliance program covering statutory/regulatory conformity (e.g., EU CRA, FDA, UL 2900)
∙ Regulatory affairs and product security integration
∙ Conformity assessment and certification management

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

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.

Level 3 Well Defined

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ 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 TDA 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 developed Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) conform to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, based on the product's and/or service's:
(1) Use case(s); and
(2) Geographic markets.

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 Technical Documentation Artifacts

Description

Mechanisms exist to generate appropriate technical documentation artifacts for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) in sufficient detail to demonstrate conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance requirements.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic documentation (architecture, configuration, user guide) for developed products

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

∙ Documentation standards for developed systems (design, configuration, operations)

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

∙ Technical documentation deliverables defined in the SDLC (architecture, security configuration, interfaces)
∙ Documentation stored in controlled repository

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

∙ Technical documentation standards with security content requirements
∙ Documentation reviewed at design and release gates
∙ Developer contract deliverables

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

∙ Enterprise technical documentation program covering internal and third-party developed products
∙ Documentation management system with version control
∙ Regulatory documentation requirements (e.g., EU CRA technical documentation)

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

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.

Level 3 Well Defined

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ 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 TDA 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 generate appropriate technical documentation artifacts for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) in sufficient detail to demonstrate conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance requirements.

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.