Assess whether explainability artifacts would survive an exam from EU AI Act

Situation

An insurer scoring claims with a third-party model cannot treat a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose as color commentary on EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet. Model-risk officer must close explainability artifacts would survive from that extract under AI Governance / Inventory and Regulatory Fit.

Decision

Model-risk officer in an insurer scoring claims with a third-party 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 new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose.

Hypotheses to test

• Authorize Policy or governance breach now; EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet already has the discriminator after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose.
• Keep Model defect in force until EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet is completed after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose for model-risk officer.
• Treat EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet as Dual failure because both readings appear after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose.
• Refuse a AI Governance close: model-risk officer does not have the page explainability artifacts would survive turns on in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet.

Analysis required

• 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 explainability artifacts would survive 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.
• For this AI Governance Inventory and Regulatory Fit file, read EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet against a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose and write the one fact that would move explainability artifacts would survive for model-risk 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 new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose). Lead with the AI Governance option EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet can support after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose, then the two facts that force it, then the Monday action for model-risk officer in an insurer scoring claims with a third-party model.

Command returns

• Bottom-line AI Governance option on explainability artifacts would survive, then the evidence in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet, then the action for model-risk officer
• Hypothesis scorecard against EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet: supported / rejected / untestable
• What changes explainability artifacts would survive if a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose is later withdrawn
• Named option among Policy or governance breach, Model defect, Dual failure and the fact that kills the others