What is the most common gap auditors find on MP-1.4?

Value defined at business-case stage and never re-tested against outcomes

`MP-1.4` The business value or context of business use has been clearly defined or, in the case of assessing existing…

Q: What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on MP-1.4 The business value or context of business use has been clearly defined or, in the case of assessing existing…?

The documented business value or use context for the system; Re-evaluation records for AI systems already in operation; The measures by which value is judged after deployment; Analysis of how the social context of use bears on the value claimed.

The business value or context of business use has been clearly defined or – in the case of assessing existing AI systems – re-evaluated. Business value is stated in terms that can be checked after deployment, and for systems already running it is re-evaluated rather than assumed from the original case.

Source: NIST AI RMF 1.0, MP-1.4. 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.

artefacts

held by a system

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

Re-evaluation records for AI systems already in operation · Document repository
Analysis of how the social context of use bears on the value claimed · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

The documented business value or use context for the system · Document repository
The measures by which value is judged after deployment · Policy repository / GRC workspace

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

Value defined at business-case stage and never re-tested against outcomes
Existing systems inherited with no re-evaluation performed
Value stated only as cost saving, ignoring how the system is used and by whom

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

MP-1.3 The organization's mission and relevant goals for the AI technology are understood and documented · MP-1.5 Organizational risk tolerances are determined and documented