EvidenceSheet

MN-3.1 AI risks and benefits from third-party resources are regularly monitored, and risk controls are applied and documented

AI risks and benefits from third-party resources are regularly monitored, and risk controls are applied and documented. Third-party data, model, software and hardware dependencies are monitored on an ongoing basis, not a

4
artefacts
0
held by a system
2
at each review
hard
to go live
Vendor register / contract 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

  • Monitoring records showing regular review of those dependencies · SIEM / log platform
  • The risk controls applied to each and evidence they are in place · Vendor register / contract repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • The inventory of third-party resources the AI system depends on · Vendor register / contract repository
  • The route by which a third-party change reaches the risk owner · Vendor register / contract 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-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 · MN-3.2 Pre-trained models which are used for development are monitored as part of AI system regular monitoring and maintenance