Assess whether an agent may take actions without a human gate (60ed3e)

Situation

Policy and Oversight work in a hospital deploying a sepsis-risk model now turns on an agent may take because a business unit that already went live without a risk tier put EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet in play. Exam-readiness coordinator should say what EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet proves.

Decision

Exam-readiness coordinator in a hospital deploying a sepsis-risk model 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 business unit that already went live without a risk tier.

Hypotheses to test

• Exam-readiness coordinator can defend Policy or governance breach from EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier in a AI Governance challenge.
• Exam-readiness coordinator cannot defend Policy or governance breach from EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet; Model defect is what the extract actually supports after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier.
• A business unit that already went live without a risk tier 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 business unit that already went live without a risk tier conflict for exam-readiness coordinator; hold this Policy and Oversight file.

Analysis required

• Walk the model input/output path recorded in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet and mark each hop approved, shadow, or unlogged.
• Verify data provenance and the human-oversight gate exam-readiness coordinator can actually point to.
• Walk the model input/output path recorded in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet and mark each hop approved, shadow, or unlogged.
• For this AI Governance Policy and Oversight file, read EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet against a business unit that already went live without a risk tier and write the one fact that would move an agent may take for exam-readiness coordinator.

Recommendation

Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance / Policy and Oversight packet (EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier). The follow-on Policy and Oversight action is what exam-readiness coordinator does next: implement the option, assign an owner, and log the missing fact.

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 exam-readiness coordinator
• Hypothesis scorecard against EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet: supported / rejected / untestable
• Missing page in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier, if any
• Regulatory or exam hook Policy and Oversight would cite