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

MS-2.3 AI system performance or assurance criteria are measured qualitatively or quantitatively and demonstrated for…

AI system performance or assurance criteria are measured qualitatively or quantitatively and demonstrated for conditions similar to deployment setting(s). Measures are documented. Performance is demonstrated under conditions resembling deployment rather than only on held-out test data, and the measures are recorded.

Source: NIST AI RMF 1.0, MS-2.3. 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
0
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

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • The performance or assurance criteria set for the system · Document repository
  • Measurement results obtained under conditions similar to the deployment setting · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • The argument that the test conditions resemble deployment · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Documentation of the measures used, qualitative as well as quantitative · 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-2.2 Evaluations involving human subjects meet applicable requirements including human subject protection and are… · MS-2.4 The functionality and behavior of the AI system and its components, as identified in the MAP function, are…