+Artikel 82 AI-system som uppfyller kraven och som utgör en risk
---+Artikel 82 1.
---+Artikel 82 2.
---+Artikel 82 3.
---+Artikel 82 4.
---+Artikel 82 5.

Artikel 82 AI-system som uppfyller kraven och som utgör en risk

-

1. Översikt

,
Artikel 82 1.
Om en marknadskontrollmyndighet i en medlemsstat har gjort en utvärdering enligt artikel 79 och, efter samråd med den nationella offentliga myndighet som avses i artikel 77.1, konstaterar att ett AI-system med hög risk uppfyller kraven i denna förordning men ändå utgör en risk för personers hälsa och säkerhet, för grundläggande rättigheter eller för andra aspekter av skyddet av allmänintresset, ska den ålägga den berörda operatören att, utan oskäligt dröjsmål och inom en period som den får fastställa, vidta alla lämpliga åtgärder för att säkerställa att det berörda AI-systemet när det släpps ut på marknaden eller tas i bruk inte längre utgör en sådan risk.
Artikel 82 2.
Leverantören eller en annan berörd operatör ska säkerställa att korrigerande åtgärder vidtas i fråga om alla berörda AI-system som den har tillhandahållit på marknaden i unionen inom den tidsplan som föreskrivs av marknadskontrollmyndigheten i den medlemsstat som avses i punkt 1.
Artikel 82 3.
Medlemsstaterna ska omedelbart informera kommissionen och de andra medlemsstaterna om ett konstaterande enligt punkt 1. Den informationen ska innehålla alla tillgängliga närmare uppgifter, särskilt de data som krävs för att kunna identifiera det berörda AI-systemet, dess ursprung och leveranskedja, den risk som AI-systemet utgör samt vilken typ av nationella åtgärder som vidtagits och deras varaktighet.
Artikel 82 4.
Kommissionen ska utan oskäligt dröjsmål inleda samråd med de berörda medlemsstaterna och de berörda operatörerna samt utvärdera de nationella åtgärderna. På grundval av utvärderingsresultaten ska kommissionen besluta om åtgärden är berättigad, och vid behov föreslå andra lämpliga åtgärder.
Artikel 82 5.
Kommissionen ska omedelbart meddela sitt beslut till de berörda medlemsstaterna och till de berörda operatörerna. Den ska också informera övriga medlemsstater.

1.1 Referenser

1.2 Identifierade krav

1.3 Relaterade standarder

2. Identifierade krav

Krav

3. Relaterade standarder

Standarder
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.