EvidenceSheet

MS-1.1 Approaches and metrics for measurement of AI risks enumerated during the MAP function are selected for…

Approaches and metrics for measurement of AI risks enumerated during the Map function are selected for implementation starting with the most significant AI risks. The risks or trustworthiness characteristics that will not – or cannot – be measured are properly documented. Measurement approaches are selected against the risks that mapping produced, most significant first, and anything left unmeasured is named as unmeasured rather than silently omitted.

Source: NIST AI RMF 1.0, MS-1.1. 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.

4
artefacts
1
held by a system
2
at each review
moderate
to go live
Policy repository / GRC workspace
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

  • The selected measurement approaches and metrics, traced to mapped risks · Policy repository / GRC workspace

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • An explicit record of risks and characteristics that will not or cannot be measured, with reasons · Document repository
  • Evidence the selection was implemented rather than only planned · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • The prioritisation showing the most significant risks addressed first · Document repository

First move

Start with the 1 of 4 artefacts that already live in a system (Policy repository / GRC workspace); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

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

MP-5.2 Practices and personnel for supporting regular engagement with relevant AI actors and integrating feedback… · MS-1.2 Appropriateness of AI metrics and effectiveness of existing controls is regularly assessed and updated…