+Artykuł 82 Zgodne systemy AI stwarzające ryzyko
---+Artykuł 82 1.
---+Artykuł 82 2.
---+Artykuł 82 3.
---+Artykuł 82 4.
---+Artykuł 82 5.

Artykuł 82 Zgodne systemy AI stwarzające ryzyko

-

1. Przegląd

,
Artykuł 82 1.
W przypadku gdy po przeprowadzeniu oceny zgodnie z art. 79, po konsultacji z odpowiednim krajowym organem publicznym, o którym mowa w art. 77 ust. 1, organ nadzoru rynku państwa członkowskiego ustali, że chociaż system AI wysokiego ryzyka jest zgodny z niniejszym rozporządzeniem, stwarza jednak ryzyko dla zdrowia lub bezpieczeństwa osób, dla praw podstawowych lub dla innych aspektów ochrony interesu publicznego, organ ten zobowiązuje właściwego operatora do podjęcia bez zbędnej zwłoki wszelkich odpowiednich środków w celu zapewnienia, aby dany system AI po wprowadzeniu do obrotu lub oddaniu do użytku nie stwarzał już takiego ryzyka, w terminie, który może zostać wyznaczony przez ten organ.
Artykuł 82 2.
Dostawca lub inny właściwy operator zapewniają podjęcie działań naprawczych w odniesieniu do wszystkich systemów AI, które udostępnili na rynku Unii, w terminie wyznaczonym przez organ nadzoru rynku państwa członkowskiego, o którym mowa w ust. 1.
Artykuł 82 3.
Państwa członkowskie natychmiast powiadamiają Komisję i pozostałe państwa członkowskie o swoim ustaleniu zgodnie z ust. 1. W powiadomieniu tym zawiera się wszelkie dostępne szczegółowe informacje, w szczególności dane niezbędne do identyfikacji danego systemu AI, pochodzenie systemu AI i informacje na temat jego łańcucha dostaw, charakter przedmiotowego ryzyka oraz charakter i okres obowiązywania podjętych środków krajowych.
Artykuł 82 4.
Komisja bez zbędnej zwłoki przystępuje do konsultacji z zainteresowanymi państwami członkowskim i właściwymi operatorami i ocenia podjęte środki krajowe. Na podstawie wyników tej oceny Komisja podejmuje decyzję, czy środek krajowy jest uzasadniony i w razie potrzeby proponuje inne odpowiednie środki.
Artykuł 82 5.
Komisja natychmiast przekazuje swoją decyzję do zainteresowanych państw członkowskich i operatorów. Komisja powiadamia również pozostałe państwa członkowskie.

1.1 Odwołania

1.2 Zidentyfikowane wymagania

1.3 Powiązane normy

2. Zidentyfikowane wymagania

Wymagania

3. Powiązane normy

Normy
SCF Non-Conformity Corrective Action

Description

Mechanisms exist to implement corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Corrective action log (spreadsheet)
∙ Documented remediation plans for audit findings

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

∙ Corrective action register with remediation tracking
∙ Management review of open findings

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

∙ Formal corrective action plan process
∙ GRC platform for finding tracking and remediation
∙ Management review of open findings

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

∙ Enterprise corrective action management program
∙ GRC platform with workflow-driven remediation tracking
∙ Executive reporting on open findings

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

∙ Enterprise GRC platform for corrective action management
∙ Automated finding tracking and escalation workflows
∙ Board-level reporting on material findings

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

Compliance (CPL) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CPL domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Compliance management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Compliance efforts are narrowly-limited to certain compliance requirements.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.

Level 3 Well Defined

Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC 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 CPL 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 take corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.

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.