Assess whether the system is high-risk under the EU AI Act (392825)

SITUATION Model-risk officer is responsible for the system is high-risk in a university licensing an AI proctoring vendor, using generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft as the only working extract. A customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy is what reset the timeline for this AI Governance Policy and Oversight file.

DECISION Model-risk officer in a university licensing an AI proctoring vendor must choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact using generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Model-risk officer can defend Policy or governance breach from generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy in a AI Governance challenge. 2. Model-risk officer cannot defend Policy or governance breach from generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft; Model defect is what the extract actually supports after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy. 3. A customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy never reached the population in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft — reopen intake, do not close the system is high-risk. 4. Two facts in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy conflict for model-risk officer; hold this Policy and Oversight file.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Map the approved-use case to the system the system is high-risk would bind. 2. Check intended purpose and inventory status against EU AI Act / exam-readiness language after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy. 3. Map the approved-use case to the system the system is high-risk would bind. 4. For this AI Governance Policy and Oversight file, read generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft against a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy and write the one fact that would move the system is high-risk for model-risk officer.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance / Policy and Oversight packet (generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy). The follow-on Policy and Oversight action is what model-risk officer does next: implement the option, assign an owner, and log the missing fact.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line AI Governance option on the system is high-risk, then the evidence in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft, then the action for model-risk officer - Hypothesis scorecard against generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft: supported / rejected / untestable - Owner and next date for model-risk officer in a university licensing an AI proctoring vendor - What changes the system is high-risk if a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy is later withdrawn