Assess whether the system is high-risk under the EU AI Act (a6d4b1)

SITUATION After a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable', post-deployment drift report the owner never signed is what chief AI officer can touch in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm. AI Governance will live with Policy or governance breach versus Model defect on this Policy and Oversight file.

DECISION Chief AI officer in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm must choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact using post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Chief AI officer can defend Policy or governance breach from post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' in a AI Governance challenge. 2. Chief AI officer cannot defend Policy or governance breach from post-deployment drift report the owner never signed; Model defect is what the extract actually supports after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'. 3. A board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' never reached the population in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed — reopen intake, do not close the system is high-risk. 4. Two facts in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' conflict for chief AI officer; hold this Policy and Oversight file.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Walk the model input/output path recorded in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed and mark each hop approved, shadow, or unlogged. 2. Verify data provenance and the human-oversight gate chief AI officer can actually point to. 3. Walk the model input/output path recorded in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed and mark each hop approved, shadow, or unlogged. 4. For this AI Governance Policy and Oversight file, read post-deployment drift report the owner never signed against a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' and write the one fact that would move the system is high-risk for chief AI officer.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance / Policy and Oversight packet (post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'). Lead with the AI Governance option post-deployment drift report the owner never signed can support after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable', then the two facts that force it, then the Monday action for chief AI officer in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm.