What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on MP-1.5 Organizational risk tolerances are determined and documented?

The documented risk tolerance statement and its approval authority; The criteria or scale by which a measured risk is judged against tolerance; Any sector, regulatory or professional requirements the tolerance is derived from; Records of decisions taken by applying the tolerance.

What is the most common gap auditors find on MP-1.5?

Tolerance expressed as a word with no scale, so nothing can be judged against it

NIST AI RMF 1.0 · MAP - NIST AI RMF 1.0

`MP-1.5` Organizational risk tolerances are determined and documented

Organizational risk tolerances are determined and documented. Tolerance is written down at a level that lets someone decide whether a measured risk is acceptable, and it is traceable to an authority that can set it.

Source: NIST AI RMF 1.0, MP-1.5. 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

Records of decisions taken by applying the tolerance · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

The documented risk tolerance statement and its approval authority · Document repository
The criteria or scale by which a measured risk is judged against tolerance · Document repository
Any sector, regulatory or professional requirements the tolerance is derived from · 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

Tolerance expressed as a word with no scale, so nothing can be judged against it
Set by the delivery team rather than by an authority that can accept the consequence
Documented but never referenced in any deployment decision

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-1.4 The business value or context of business use has been clearly defined or, in the case of assessing existing… · MP-1.6 System requirements are elicited from and understood by relevant AI actors, and design decisions take…