+Artikel 55 Verplichtingen van aanbieders van AI-modellen voor algemene doeleinden met een systeemrisico
---+Artikel 55 1.
---+Artikel 55 2.
---+Artikel 55 3.

Artikel 55 Verplichtingen van aanbieders van AI-modellen voor algemene doeleinden met een systeemrisico

-

1. Overzicht

,
Artikel 55 1.

Naast de in de artikelen 53 en 54 genoemde verplichtingen moeten aanbieders van AI-modellen voor algemene doeleinden met een systeemrisico:

a) 

een modelevaluatie uitvoeren overeenkomstig gestandaardiseerde protocollen en instrumenten die de stand van de techniek weerspiegelen, met inbegrip van het uitvoeren en documenteren van tests gericht op het ontdekken van kwetsbaarheden van het model met als doel om systeemrisico’s in kaart te brengen en te beperken;

b) 

mogelijke systeemrisico’s op Unieniveau beoordelen en beperken, met inbegrip van de bronnen daarvan, die kunnen voortvloeien uit de ontwikkeling, het in de handel brengen of het gebruik van AI-modellen voor algemene doeleinden met een systeemrisico;

c) 

relevante informatie over ernstige incidenten en mogelijke corrigerende maatregelen bijhouden, documenteren en onverwijld rapporteren aan het AI-bureau en, in voorkomend geval, aan de nationale bevoegde autoriteiten;

d) 

zorgen voor een passend niveau van cyberbeveiligingsbescherming voor het AI-model voor algemene doeleinden met een systeemrisico en de fysieke infrastructuur van het model.
Artikel 55 2.
Aanbieders van AI-modellen voor algemene doeleinden met een systeemrisico kunnen zich baseren op praktijkcodes in de zin van artikel 56 om de naleving van de in lid 1 van dit artikel vastgestelde verplichtingen aan te tonen, totdat er een geharmoniseerde norm is gepubliceerd. Door Europese geharmoniseerde normen na te leven genieten aanbieders een vermoeden van overeenstemming, voor zover die normen ook die verplichtingen dekken. Aanbieders van AI-modellen voor algemene doeleinden met een systeemrisico die zich niet aan een goedgekeurde praktijkcode houden of niet voldoen aan een Europese geharmoniseerde norm, tonen alternatieve passende wijzen van naleving aan die door de Commissie moeten worden beoordeeld.
Artikel 55 3.
Uit hoofde van dit artikel verkregen informatie of documentatie, met inbegrip van bedrijfsgeheimen, worden verwerkt overeenkomstig de in artikel 78 vastgelegde vertrouwelijkheidsverplichtingen.

1.1 Referenties

1.2 Geïdentificeerde eisen

1.3 Gerelateerde standaarden

2. Geïdentificeerde eisen

Eisen

3. Gerelateerde standaarden

Standaarden
SCF Adequate Protections For AI & Autonomous Technologies

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) include reasonable security, compliance and resilience protections that are commensurate with assessed risks and threats.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Contractual security requirements in AI vendor agreements

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

∙ Security assessment of AI tools before adoption
∙ Vendor security questionnaires

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

∙ AI security requirements checklist
∙ Third-party risk assessment for AI vendors

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

∙ Formal AI security standards
∙ Security review in AI procurement process
∙ Ongoing vendor monitoring

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

∙ Enterprise AI security requirements framework
∙ Automated TPRM platform
∙ Continuous AI vendor monitoring

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 ensure AAT include reasonable security, compliance and resilience protections that are commensurate with assessed risks and threats.

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 Adequate Protections For AI & Autonomous Technologies

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) include reasonable security, compliance and resilience protections that are commensurate with assessed risks and threats.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Contractual security requirements in AI vendor agreements

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

∙ Security assessment of AI tools before adoption
∙ Vendor security questionnaires

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

∙ AI security requirements checklist
∙ Third-party risk assessment for AI vendors

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

∙ Formal AI security standards
∙ Security review in AI procurement process
∙ Ongoing vendor monitoring

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

∙ Enterprise AI security requirements framework
∙ Automated TPRM platform
∙ Continuous AI vendor monitoring

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 ensure AAT include reasonable security, compliance and resilience protections that are commensurate with assessed risks and threats.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

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

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

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

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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

Level 3 Well Defined

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

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

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

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

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

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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

Level 3 Well Defined

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

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

Mechanisms exist to prevent "model pollution" due to accidental and/or malicious inputs by an AI agent that can negatively alter the AI model.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Restrict who can provide inputs to AI models

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

∙ Access controls and input validation for AI models

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

∙ Formal model pollution prevention policy
∙ Input validation controls

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

∙ AI model integrity program
∙ Input validation, sanitization, and access controls

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

∙ Enterprise AI model integrity framework
∙ Differential privacy techniques
∙ Input validation and anomaly detection

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 prevent "model pollution" due to accidental and/or malicious inputs by an AI agent that can negatively alter the AI model.

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.