EvidenceSheet

MN-1.3 Responses to the AI risks deemed high priority as identified by the MAP function are developed, planned, and documented, and risk response options can include mitigating, transferring, avoiding, or accepting

Responses to the AI risks deemed high priority as identified by the Map function, are developed, planned, and documented. Risk response options can include mitigating, transferring, avoiding, or accepting. High-priority

4
artefacts
0
held by a system
0
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

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Documented responses for each high-priority risk, naming the option chosen · Document repository
  • Response plans with owner, action and target date · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Acceptance decisions recorded with the accepting authority · Document repository
  • Traceability from the mapped risk to its response · 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

MN-1.2 Treatment of documented AI risks is prioritized based on impact, likelihood, or available resources or methods · MN-1.4 Negative residual risks, defined as the sum of all unmitigated risks, to both downstream acquirers of AI systems and end users are documented