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

MS-2.2 Evaluations involving human subjects meet applicable requirements including human subject protection and are…

Evaluations involving human subjects meet applicable requirements (including human subject protection) and are representative of the relevant population. Where evaluation involves human subjects or data captured from them, the applicable protection requirements are met and the subject population is representative of the deployment population.

Source: NIST AI RMF 1.0, MS-2.2. 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
3
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

  • Evidence the applicable human subject protection requirements were met, including any approval obtained · Document repository
  • Analysis of representativeness against the relevant population · Document repository
  • Consent and data handling records for subject data used in evaluation · Data governance / DLP tooling

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Identification of evaluations involving human subjects or human subject data · 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-2.1 Test sets, metrics, and details about the tools used during test, evaluation, validation, and verification… · MS-2.3 AI system performance or assurance criteria are measured qualitatively or quantitatively and demonstrated for…