EvidenceSheet
NIST AI RMF 1.0 · MEASURE - NIST AI RMF 1.0

MS-1.3 Internal experts who did not serve as front-line developers for the system and independent assessors are…

Internal experts who did not serve as front-line developers for the system and/or independent assessors are involved in regular assessments and updates. Domain experts, users, AI actors external to the team that developed or deployed the AI system, and affected communities are consulted in support of assessments as necessary per organizational risk tolerance. Assessment includes people who did not build the system, with the depth of external consultation set by the organisation's risk tolerance.

Source: NIST AI RMF 1.0, MS-1.3. 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
0
held by a system
2
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

  • Assessment records naming assessors and their independence from development · Document repository
  • Records of consultation with domain experts, users and affected communities · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • The link from risk tolerance to the level of independence required · Document repository
  • Findings raised by independent assessors and their disposition · Document repository

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

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-1.2 Appropriateness of AI metrics and effectiveness of existing controls is regularly assessed and updated… · MS-2.1 Test sets, metrics, and details about the tools used during test, evaluation, validation, and verification…