EvidenceSheet
NIST AI RMF 1.0 · GOVERN - NIST AI RMF 1.0

GV-4.1 Organizational policies and practices are in place to foster a critical thinking and safety-first mindset in…

Organizational policies, and practices are in place to foster a critical thinking and safety-first mindset in the design, development, deployment, and uses of AI systems to minimize negative impacts. Practices exist that make raising a concern normal and consequential, such as separated accountability lines or a recorded route for challenging a deployment decision.

Source: NIST AI RMF 1.0, GV-4.1. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open NIST AI RMF 1.0 in the compliance library.

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. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Records of concerns raised and how each was resolved · Document repository
  • Evidence a concern changed a design or delayed a deployment · Source control / CI pipeline

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Policy establishing separated accountability for development, risk and assurance · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • The internal route for raising an AI safety concern and the protection attached to it · Document repository

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

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-3.2 Policies and procedures are in place to define and differentiate roles and responsibilities for human-AI… · GV-4.2 Organizational teams document the risks and potential impacts of the AI technology they design, develop…