EvidenceSheet

MS-1.2 Appropriateness of AI metrics and effectiveness of existing controls is regularly assessed and updated, including reports of errors and impacts on affected communities

Appropriateness of AI metrics and effectiveness of existing controls is regularly assessed and updated including reports of errors and impacts on affected communities. The metrics themselves are re-examined on a cycle fo

4
artefacts
1
held by a system
3
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

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

  • Changes made to metrics or controls as a result · Policy repository / GRC workspace

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Records of periodic assessment of metric appropriateness and control effectiveness · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Error reports and community impact reports considered in that assessment · Document repository
  • The trigger conditions, such as drift or changed operating setting, that force a re-assessment · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

none for this control

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

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 · MS-1.3 Internal experts who did not serve as front-line developers for the system and independent assessors are involved in regular assessments and updates, and domain experts, users, AI actors external to the team, and affected communities are consulted in support of assessments as necessary per organizational risk tolerance