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.
4
artefacts
0
held by a system
1
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
- 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 · 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
- 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 sheetMP-1.4 The business value or context of business use has been clearly defined or, in the case of assessing existing AI systems, re-evaluated · MP-1.6 System requirements are elicited from and understood by relevant AI actors, and design decisions take socio-technical implications into account to address AI risks