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

MS-2.6 AI system is evaluated regularly for safety risks as identified in the MAP function, is demonstrated to be…

AI system is evaluated regularly for safety risks – as identified in the MAP function. The AI system to be deployed is demonstrated to be safe, its residual negative risk does not exceed the risk tolerance, and can fail safely, particularly if made to operate beyond its knowledge limits. Safety metrics implicate system reliability and robustness, real-time monitoring, and response times for AI system failures. Safety is evaluated on a recurring basis against the mapped safety risks, residual risk is compared to the stated tolerance, and behaviour beyond the knowledge limits is tested for safe failure.

Source: NIST AI RMF 1.0, MS-2.6. 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
SIEM / log platform
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

  • Safety metrics covering reliability, robustness, real-time monitoring and failure response time · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Safety evaluation results traced to the safety risks mapping identified · Document repository
  • Test results for behaviour beyond the system's knowledge limits · Source control / CI pipeline

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • The residual safety risk recorded and compared against the stated tolerance · Document repository

First move

Start with the 1 of 4 artefacts that already live in a system (SIEM / log platform); 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-2.5 The AI system to be deployed is demonstrated to be valid and reliable, and limitations of the… · MS-2.7 AI system security and resilience as identified in the MAP function are evaluated and documented