+Artikel 50 Transparensskyldigheter för leverantörer och tillhandahållare av vissa AI-system
---+Artikel 50 1.
---+Artikel 50 2.
---+Artikel 50 3.
---+Artikel 50 4.
---+Artikel 50 5.
---+Artikel 50 6.
---+Artikel 50 7.
|
Artikel 50 Transparensskyldigheter för leverantörer och tillhandahållare av vissa AI-system
-
1. Översikt
| Rubrik |
Reglering |
|
Artikel 50 1.
|
Leverantörer ska säkerställa att AI-system som är avsedda att interagera direkt med fysiska personer utformas och utvecklas på ett sådant sätt att de berörda fysiska personerna informeras om att de interagerar med ett AI-system, såvida detta inte är uppenbart för en fysisk person som är normalt informerad och skäligen uppmärksam och medveten, med beaktande av användningens omständigheter och sammanhang. Denna skyldighet är inte tillämplig på AI-system som enligt lag får upptäcka, förebygga, förhindra, utreda eller lagföra brott, med förbehåll för lämpliga garantier för tredje parters rättigheter och friheter, såvida inte dessa system är tillgängliga för allmänheten för att anmäla ett brott.
|
|
Artikel 50 2.
|
Leverantörer av AI-system, inbegripet AI-system för allmänna ändamål, som genererar syntetiskt ljud-, bild-, video- eller textinnehåll ska säkerställa att AI-systemets utdata är märkta i ett maskinläsbart format och kan upptäckas som artificiellt genererade eller manipulerade. Leverantörer ska säkerställa att deras tekniska lösningar är effektiva, interoperabla, robusta och tillförlitliga i den mån det är tekniskt möjligt, med beaktande av särdragen och begränsningarna hos olika typer av innehåll, genomförandekostnaderna och den allmänt erkända senaste utvecklingen, vilket kan återspeglas i relevanta tekniska standarder. Denna skyldighet är inte tillämplig i den mån AI-systemen utför en hjälpfunktion för vanlig redigering eller inte väsentligt ändrar de indata som tillhandahålls av tillhandahållaren eller deras semantik, eller om systemen enligt lag får upptäcka, förebygga, förhindra, utreda eller lagföra brott.
|
|
Artikel 50 3.
|
Tillhandahållare av ett system för känsloigenkänning eller ett system för biometrisk kategorisering ska informera de fysiska personer som exponeras för systemet om systemets drift, och ska behandla personuppgifter i enlighet med förordningarna (EU) 2016/679 och (EU) 2018/1725 och direktiv (EU) 2016/680, beroende på vad som är tillämpligt. Denna skyldighet är inte tillämplig på AI-system som används för biometrisk kategorisering och känsloigenkänning och som enligt lag får upptäcka, förebygga eller utreda brott, med förbehåll för lämpliga garantier för tredje parters rättigheter och friheter, och i enlighet med unionsrätten.
|
|
Artikel 50 4.
|
Tillhandahållare av ett AI-system som genererar eller manipulerar bild-, ljud- eller videoinnehåll som utgör en deepfake ska upplysa om att innehållet har genererats artificiellt eller manipulerats. Denna skyldighet är inte tillämplig om användningen enligt lag är tillåten för att upptäcka, förebygga, förhindra, utreda eller lagföra brott. Om innehållet utgör en del av ett uppenbart konstnärligt, kreativt, satiriskt, skönlitterärt eller liknande verk eller program, ska de transparenskrav som anges i denna punkt begränsas till att upplysa om förekomsten av sådant genererat eller manipulerat innehåll på ett lämpligt sätt som inte hindrar visningen eller åtnjutandet av verket. Tillhandahållare av ett AI-system som genererar eller manipulerar text som offentliggörs i syfte att informera allmänheten om frågor av allmänt intresse ska upplysa om att texten har genererats artificiellt eller manipulerats. Denna skyldighet är inte tillämplig om användningen enligt lag är tillåten för att upptäcka, förebygga, förhindra, utreda eller lagföra brott eller om det AI-genererade innehållet har genomgått en process med mänsklig granskning eller redaktionell kontroll och om en fysisk eller juridisk person bär det redaktionella ansvaret för offentliggörandet av innehållet.
|
|
Artikel 50 5.
|
Den information som avses i punkterna 1–4 ska lämnas till de berörda fysiska personerna på ett tydligt och urskiljbart sätt senast vid tidpunkten för den första interaktionen eller exponeringen. Informationen ska uppfylla de tillämpliga tillgänglighetskraven.
|
|
Artikel 50 6.
|
Punkterna 1–4 påverkar inte de krav och skyldigheter som fastställs i kapitel III, och påverkar inte andra transparensskyldigheter som fastställs i unionsrätten eller nationell rätt för tillhandahållare av AI-system.
|
|
Artikel 50 7.
|
Kommissionen ska uppmuntra och underlätta utarbetandet av förfarandekoder på unionsnivå för att underlätta ett effektivt genomförande av skyldigheterna avseende upptäckt och märkning av artificiellt skapat eller manipulerat innehåll. Kommissionen ska, med största möjliga beaktande av styrelsens yttrande, bedöma huruvida tillämpning av dessa förfarandekoder är tillräckligt för att säkerställa efterlevnad av de skyldigheter som fastställs i punkterna 2 och 4 i denna artikel, i enlighet med det förfarande som fastställs i artikel 56.6. Om kommissionen anser att förfarandekoden inte är lämplig får den anta en genomförandeakt som specificerar gemensamma regler för genomförandet av dessa skyldigheter i enlighet med det granskningsförfarande som fastställs i artikel 98.2.
|
,
1.1 Referenser
1.2 Identifierade krav
1.3 Relaterade standarder
2. Identifierade krav
3. Relaterade standarder
Standarder
| Källa |
Krav |
|
SCF
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Output Marking
Description
Mechanisms exist to mark output from Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) in a machine-readable format so it is detectable as artificially generated or manipulated.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Label AI-generated content when distributing it
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Policy requiring labeling of AI-generated content
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal AI content marking policy ∙ Machine-readable metadata for AI content
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI content marking program ∙ Technical implementation of C2PA or similar standards
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI content marking framework ∙ C2PA standard implementation ∙ Automated content marking in AI pipelines
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to mark output from AAT in a machine-readable format so it is detectable as artificially generated or manipulated.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Use Notification To Users
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are: (1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and (2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Inform users when AI is making or assisting decisions affecting them
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ User notification policy for AI-assisted decisions
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal user notification policy and procedures for AI decision support
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI user transparency program ∙ Automated user notifications for AI decisions
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI user transparency framework ∙ Automated disclosure mechanisms ∙ Regulatory compliance (EU AI Act, GDPR)
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure AAT that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are: (1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and (2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Use Notification To Users
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are: (1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and (2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Inform users when AI is making or assisting decisions affecting them
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ User notification policy for AI-assisted decisions
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal user notification policy and procedures for AI decision support
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI user transparency program ∙ Automated user notifications for AI decisions
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI user transparency framework ∙ Automated disclosure mechanisms ∙ Regulatory compliance (EU AI Act, GDPR)
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure AAT that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are: (1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and (2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Use Notification To Users
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are: (1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and (2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Inform users when AI is making or assisting decisions affecting them
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ User notification policy for AI-assisted decisions
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal user notification policy and procedures for AI decision support
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI user transparency program ∙ Automated user notifications for AI decisions
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI user transparency framework ∙ Automated disclosure mechanisms ∙ Regulatory compliance (EU AI Act, GDPR)
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure AAT that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are: (1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and (2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|