EvidenceSheet

MN-2.4 Mechanisms are in place and applied, and responsibilities are assigned and understood, to supersede, disengage, or deactivate AI systems that demonstrate performance or outcomes inconsistent with intended use

Mechanisms are in place and applied, responsibilities are assigned and understood to supersede, disengage, or deactivate AI systems that demonstrate performance or outcomes inconsistent with intended use. The ability to

4
artefacts
0
held by a system
2
at each review
hard
to go live
Policy repository / GRC workspace
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

  • The role assigned to invoke it and evidence that role understands the duty · Identity provider / directory
  • Test or exercise evidence that disengagement works and the fallback holds · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • The technical mechanism to supersede, disengage or deactivate the system · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • The criteria that trigger disengagement · Policy repository / GRC workspace

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-2.3 Procedures are followed to respond to and recover from a previously unknown risk when it is identified · MN-3.1 AI risks and benefits from third-party resources are regularly monitored, and risk controls are applied and documented