MP-5.2 Practices and personnel for supporting regular engagement with relevant AI actors and integrating feedback about positive, negative, and unanticipated impacts are in place and documented
Practices and personnel for supporting regular engagement with relevant AI actors and integrating feedback about positive, negative, and unanticipated impacts are in place and documented. Engagement with affected actors
system holds itEvidence a system already holds
none for this control
periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review
- Records of impacts reported through engagement, including unanticipated ones · Document repository
- Evidence reported impacts were integrated into the impact record · Document repository
governing documentDocuments that govern the control
- The documented engagement practice and its cadence · Document repository
- Personnel assigned to conduct and integrate engagement · Document repository
First move
Common gaps auditors find
- Engagement run as a one-off consultation at launch
- No named personnel, so engagement depends on individual initiative
- Unanticipated impacts reported with no route into the risk record
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-5.1 Likelihood and magnitude of each identified impact are identified and documented, based on expected use, past uses of AI systems in similar contexts, public incident reports, feedback from those external to the team, or other data · MS-1.1 Approaches and metrics for measurement of AI risks enumerated during the MAP function are selected for implementation starting with the most significant AI risks, and the risks or trustworthiness characteristics that will not or cannot be measured are properly documented