EvidenceSheet

MS-2.6 AI system is evaluated regularly for safety risks as identified in the MAP function, is demonstrated to be safe, its residual negative risk does not exceed the risk tolerance, and it can fail safely, particularly if made to operate beyond its knowledge limits

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

4
artefacts
1
held by a system
1
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

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

  • Test results for behaviour beyond the system's knowledge limits · Source control / CI pipeline

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Safety evaluation results traced to the safety risks mapping identified · Document repository
  • 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 generalizability beyond the conditions under which the technology was developed are documented · MS-2.7 AI system security and resilience as identified in the MAP function are evaluated and documented