Assess whether the system is high-risk under the EU AI Act (c72076)

SITUATION A pharma company using LLMs on trial documents cannot treat a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy as incidental context on training-data provenance questionnaire. Privacy counsel supporting AI inventory must close the system is high-risk from that extract under AI Governance / Policy and Oversight.

DECISION Privacy counsel supporting AI inventory in a pharma company using LLMs on trial documents must choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact using training-data provenance questionnaire after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Authorize Policy or governance breach now; training-data provenance questionnaire already has the discriminator after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy. 2. Keep Model defect in force until training-data provenance questionnaire is completed after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy for privacy counsel supporting AI inventory. 3. Treat training-data provenance questionnaire as Dual failure because both readings appear after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy. 4. Refuse a AI Governance close: privacy counsel supporting AI inventory does not have the decision the system is high-risk turns on in training-data provenance questionnaire.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Check intended purpose and inventory status against EU AI Act / exam-readiness language after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy. 2. Map the approved-use case to the system the system is high-risk would bind. 3. Check intended purpose and inventory status against EU AI Act / exam-readiness language after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy. 4. For this AI Governance Policy and Oversight file, read training-data provenance questionnaire 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 privacy counsel supporting AI inventory.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance / Policy and Oversight packet (training-data provenance questionnaire after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy). The follow-on Policy and Oversight action is what privacy counsel supporting AI inventory 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 training-data provenance questionnaire, then the action for privacy counsel supporting AI inventory - Hypothesis scorecard against training-data provenance questionnaire: supported / rejected / untestable - Owner and next date for privacy counsel supporting AI inventory in a pharma company using LLMs on trial documents - What changes the system is high-risk if a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy is later withdrawn