+Artykuł 73 Zgłaszanie poważnych incydentów
---+Artykuł 73 1.
---+Artykuł 73 2.
---+Artykuł 73 3.
---+Artykuł 73 4.
---+Artykuł 73 5.
---+Artykuł 73 6.
---+Artykuł 73 7.
---+Artykuł 73 8.
---+Artykuł 73 9.
---+Artykuł 73 10.
---+Artykuł 73 11.

Artykuł 73 Zgłaszanie poważnych incydentów

-

1. Przegląd

,
Artykuł 73 1.
Dostawcy systemów AI wysokiego ryzyka wprowadzonych do obrotu na rynku Unii zgłaszają wszelkie poważne incydenty organom nadzoru rynku tego państwa członkowskiego, w którym wystąpił dany incydent.
Artykuł 73 2.
Zgłoszenia, o którym mowa w ust. 1, dokonuje się natychmiast po ustaleniu przez dostawcę związku przyczynowego między systemem AI a poważnym incydentem lub dostatecznie wysokiego prawdopodobieństwa wystąpienia takiego związku, nie później jednak niż w terminie 15 dni od dnia, w którym dostawca lub, w stosownych przypadkach, podmiot stosujący dowiedzieli się o wystąpieniu poważnego incydentu.

Termin na dokonanie zgłoszenia, o którym mowa w akapicie pierwszym, uwzględnia dotkliwość danego poważnego incydentu.
Artykuł 73 3.
Niezależnie od ust. 2 niniejszego artykułu w przypadku powszechnego naruszenia lub poważnego incydentu zdefiniowanego w art. 3 pkt 49 lit. b) zgłoszenia, o którym mowa w ust. 1 niniejszego artykułu, dokonuje się natychmiast, nie później jednak niż w terminie dwóch dni od dnia, w którym dostawca lub, w stosownych przypadkach, podmiot stosujący dowiedzieli się o wystąpieniu tego incydentu.
Artykuł 73 4.
Niezależnie od ust. 2 w przypadku gdy nastąpi śmierć osoby, zgłoszenia dokonuje się natychmiast po stwierdzeniu przez dostawcę lub podmiot stosujący wystąpienia lub podejrzenia wystąpienia związku przyczynowego między systemem AI wysokiego ryzyka a poważnym incydentem, nie później jednak niż w terminie 10 dni od dnia, w którym dostawca lub, w stosownych przypadkach, podmiot stosujący AI dowiedzieli się o wystąpieniu danego poważnego incydentu.
Artykuł 73 5.
W przypadku gdy jest to konieczne do zapewnienia terminowego zgłoszenia, dostawca lub, w stosownych przypadkach, podmiot stosujący mogą dokonać niepełnego zgłoszenia wstępnego, a następnie zgłoszenia kompletnego.
Artykuł 73 6.
W następstwie zgłoszenia poważnego incydentu zgodnie z ust. 1 dostawca niezwłocznie przeprowadza niezbędne postępowanie wyjaśniające dotyczące poważnego incydentu oraz przedmiotowego systemu AI. Obejmuje ono ocenę ryzyka danego incydentu oraz działania naprawcze.

Podczas postępowania wyjaśniającego, o którym mowa w akapicie pierwszym, dostawca współpracuje z właściwymi organami oraz – w stosownych przypadkach – z zainteresowaną jednostką notyfikowaną i nie podejmuje żadnego działania, które obejmowałoby zmianę danego systemu AI w taki sposób, który mógłby wpłynąć na późniejszą ocenę przyczyn incydentu, dopóki nie poinformuje o takim działaniu właściwego organu.
Artykuł 73 7.
Po otrzymaniu zgłoszenia dotyczącego poważnego incydentu, o którym mowa w art. 3 pkt 49 lit. c), odpowiedni organ nadzoru rynku informuje o tym krajowe organy lub podmioty publiczne, o których mowa w art. 77 ust. 1. Komisja opracowuje specjalne wskazówki ułatwiające spełnienie obowiązków ustanowionych w ust. 1 niniejszego artykułu. Wskazówki wydaje się do dnia 2 sierpnia 2025 r. i podlegają one regularnej ocenie.
Artykuł 73 8.
W terminie siedmiu dni od daty otrzymania powiadomienia, o którym mowa w ust. 1 niniejszego artykułu, organ nadzoru rynku podejmuje odpowiednie środki przewidziane w art. 19 rozporządzenia (UE) 2019/1020 i postępuje zgodnie z procedurami powiadamiania przewidzianymi w tym rozporządzeniu.
Artykuł 73 9.
W przypadku systemów AI wysokiego ryzyka, o których mowa w załączniku III, wprowadzanych do obrotu lub oddawanych do użytku przez dostawców podlegających unijnym instrumentom prawnym ustanawiającym obowiązki w zakresie zgłaszania równoważne obowiązkom określonym w niniejszym rozporządzeniu, zgłaszanie poważnych incydentów ogranicza się do tych z nich, o których mowa w art. 3 pkt 49 lit. c).
Artykuł 73 10.
W przypadku systemów AI wysokiego ryzyka, które są związanymi z bezpieczeństwem elementami wyrobów podlegających przepisom rozporządzeń (UE) 2017/745 i (UE) 2017/746, lub które same są takimi wyrobami, zgłaszanie poważnych incydentów ogranicza się do incydentów, o których mowa w art. 3 pkt 49) lit. c) niniejszego rozporządzenia, i dokonuje się go do właściwego organu krajowego wybranego do tego celu przez państwo członkowskie, w którym wystąpił dany incydent.
Artykuł 73 11.
Właściwe organy krajowe natychmiast powiadamiają Komisję o każdym poważnym incydencie zgodnie z art. 20 rozporządzenia (UE) 2019/1020, niezależnie od tego, czy podjęły w związku z nim jakiekolwiek działania.

1.1 Odwołania

1.2 Zidentyfikowane wymagania

1.3 Powiązane normy

2. Zidentyfikowane wymagania

Wymagania

3. Powiązane normy

Normy
SCF Serious Incident Reporting For AI & Autonomous Technologies

Description

Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required

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

∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents

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

∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts

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

∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement

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

∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ Legal and compliance integration

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

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

Level 1 Performed Informally

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

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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

Level 3 Well Defined

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

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required

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

∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents

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

∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts

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

∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement

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

∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ Legal and compliance integration

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

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

Level 1 Performed Informally

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

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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

Level 3 Well Defined

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

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required

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

∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents

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

∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts

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

∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement

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

∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ Legal and compliance integration

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

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

Level 1 Performed Informally

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

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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

Level 3 Well Defined

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

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required

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

∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents

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

∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts

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

∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement

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

∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ Legal and compliance integration

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

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

Level 1 Performed Informally

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

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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

Level 3 Well Defined

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

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) to relevant authorities as to when and where the serious incident occurred, in accordance with mandated reporting timelines.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Report serious AI incidents to relevant authorities as required

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

∙ Incident reporting procedure for serious AI incidents

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

∙ Formal serious AI incident reporting process
∙ Regulatory reporting contacts

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

∙ AI incident response plan with regulatory reporting requirements
∙ Legal team involvement

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

∙ Enterprise AI incident response program
∙ Automated regulatory notification workflows
∙ Legal and compliance integration

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

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

Level 1 Performed Informally

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

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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

Level 3 Well Defined

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

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

Mechanisms exist to perform an investigation when there is a serious incident involving operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that documents a:
(1) Root Cause Analysis (RCA);
(2) Risk assessment of the incident; and
(3) Description of corrective actions taken, including measures implemented to prevent a recurrence of the incident.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Conduct post-incident review after serious AI incidents

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

∙ Root cause analysis process for serious AI incidents

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

∙ Formal RCA procedure for AI incidents
∙ Document findings and corrective actions

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

∙ AI incident investigation program with formal RCA methodology
∙ Corrective action tracking

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

∙ Enterprise AI incident management platform
∙ Formal RCA framework (5 Whys, Fishbone)
∙ Corrective action management system

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

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

Level 1 Performed Informally

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

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to perform an investigation when there is a serious incident involving operational AAT that documents a:
(1) Root Cause Analysis (RCA);
(2) Risk assessment of the incident; and
(3) Description of corrective actions taken, including measures implemented to prevent a recurrence of the incident.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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