Assess whether a shadow system must be decommissioned this quarter (e1ef2f)

Situation

Vendors and Agentic Systems work in a bank preparing for a model-risk exam now turns on a shadow system must because a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose put shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII in play. Board AI liaison should say what shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII proves.

Decision

Board AI liaison in a bank preparing for a model-risk exam must choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact using shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose.

Hypotheses to test

• Shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose supports Policy or governance breach for a shadow system must if board AI liaison can match the same Vendors and Agentic Systems population in a bank preparing for a model-risk exam.
• Shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose is closer to Model defect; calling Policy or governance breach would over-claim this AI Governance extract.
• Map the approved-use case to the system a shadow system must would bind. is still a live third reading of shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII that board AI liaison has not closed.
• Shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose does not yet name the fact a shadow system must turns on, so board AI liaison should leave AI Governance unresolved.

Analysis required

• Map the approved-use case to the system a shadow system must would bind.
• Check intended purpose and inventory status against EU AI Act / exam-readiness language after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose.
• Map the approved-use case to the system a shadow system must would bind.
• For this AI Governance Vendors and Agentic Systems file, read shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII against a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose and write the one fact that would move a shadow system must for board AI liaison.

Recommendation

From shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose, choose Policy or governance breach when shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII itself shows the discriminator for a shadow system must. Board AI liaison in a bank preparing for a model-risk exam should implement that path on this AI Governance Vendors and Agentic Systems file and name the two facts in shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII that force it. If shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose cannot support Policy or governance breach versus Model defect, board AI liaison must leave the classification unresolved and name the missing control or provenance fact.

Command returns

• Bottom-line AI Governance option on a shadow system must, then the evidence in shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII, then the action for board AI liaison
• Hypothesis scorecard against shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII: supported / rejected / untestable
• Vendors and Agentic Systems finding in shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII that a second reviewer can re-perform
• Missing page in shadow-IT chatbot connected to customer PII after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose, if any