EvidenceSheet

GV-3.1 Decision-making related to mapping, measuring, and managing AI risks throughout the lifecycle is informed by a diverse team

Decision-makings related to mapping, measuring, and managing AI risks throughout the lifecycle is informed by a diverse team (e.g., diversity of demographics, disciplines, experience, expertise, and backgrounds). The peo

4
artefacts
0
held by a system
2
at each review
hard
to go live
Document repository
where the evidence lives
teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Records of the disciplines represented on AI risk decision forums · Document repository
  • Evidence that a dissenting or external view changed a decision · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Documented consultation with external perspectives where internal expertise was thin · Document repository
  • The organisational commitment on composition of AI risk teams · Document repository

First move

This control is evidenced by people and documents, not systems. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date. Do not try to automate it.

Common gaps auditors find

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

GV-2.3 Executive leadership of the organization takes responsibility for decisions about risks associated with AI system development and deployment · GV-3.2 Policies and procedures are in place to define and differentiate roles and responsibilities for human-AI configurations and oversight of AI systems