Assess whether an agent may take actions without a human gate from EU AI Act

Situation

An agent may take sits with chief AI officer because a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy hit a bank preparing for a model-risk exam. Evidence is EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet; write the AI Governance Inventory and Regulatory Fit option that extract can carry.

Decision

Chief AI officer 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 EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy.

Hypotheses to test

• Chief AI officer can defend Policy or governance breach from EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy in a AI Governance challenge.
• Chief AI officer cannot defend Policy or governance breach from EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet; Model defect is what the extract actually supports after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy.
• A customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy never reached the population in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet — reopen intake, do not close an agent may take.
• Two facts in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy conflict for chief AI officer; hold this Inventory and Regulatory Fit file.

Analysis required

• Map the approved-use case to the system an agent may take would bind.
• Check intended purpose and inventory status against EU AI Act / exam-readiness language after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy.
• Map the approved-use case to the system an agent may take would bind.
• For this AI Governance Inventory and Regulatory Fit file, read EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet against a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy and write the one fact that would move an agent may take for chief AI officer.

Recommendation

Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance / Inventory and Regulatory Fit packet (EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy). Lead with the AI Governance option EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet can support after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy, then the two facts that force it, then the Monday action for chief AI officer in a bank preparing for a model-risk exam.

Command returns

• Bottom-line AI Governance option on an agent may take, then the evidence in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet, then the action for chief AI officer
• Hypothesis scorecard against EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet: supported / rejected / untestable
• Inventory and Regulatory Fit finding in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet that a second reviewer can re-perform
• Missing page in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy, if any