Whether explainability artifacts would survive an exam from EU AI Act

Situation

A bank preparing for a model-risk exam cannot treat a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased as color commentary on EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet. Chief AI officer must close explainability artifacts would survive from that extract under AI Governance / Inventory and Regulatory Fit.

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 journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased.

Hypotheses to test

• The population in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet is the one a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased named, so Policy or governance breach follows for this Inventory and Regulatory Fit file.
• The population in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet is adjacent only to a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased; Model defect is the honest AI Governance call.
• A bank preparing for a model-risk exam already contained a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased before EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet arrived; no new Inventory and Regulatory Fit path.
• Provenance on EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet after a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased is broken; do not pick Policy or governance breach or Model defect yet.

Analysis required

• Verify data provenance and the human-oversight gate chief AI officer 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.
• Verify data provenance and the human-oversight gate chief AI officer can actually point to.
• For this AI Governance Inventory and Regulatory Fit file, read EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet against a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased and write the one fact that would move explainability artifacts would survive 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 journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased). The follow-on Inventory and Regulatory Fit action is what chief AI officer does next: implement the option, assign an owner, and log the missing fact.

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 chief AI officer
• Hypothesis scorecard against EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet: supported / rejected / untestable
• Regulatory or exam hook Inventory and Regulatory Fit would cite
• Inventory and Regulatory Fit finding in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet that a second reviewer can re-perform