Assess whether the vendor can be used in a regulated process (17929f)

SITUATION EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet arrived with a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy for board AI liaison. That is a AI Governance Bias and Training Data decision on the vendor can be in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm.

DECISION Board AI liaison in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm 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 customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. A customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy is noise around an already-controlled Bias and Training Data process in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm, given EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet. 2. A customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy is the event in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet that forces Policy or governance breach for board AI liaison under AI Governance. 3. EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet shows a one-file miss after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy, not a Bias and Training Data program failure. 4. EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet cannot decide the vendor can be yet after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy; hold is the only AI Governance close a city using a hiring-screen algorithm can defend.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Map the approved-use case to the system the vendor can be 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 vendor can be would bind. 4. For this AI Governance Bias and Training Data file, read EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet against a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy and write the one fact that would move the vendor can be for board AI liaison.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance / Bias and Training Data packet (EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy). The follow-on Bias and Training Data action is what board AI liaison does next: implement the option, assign an owner, and log the missing fact.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line AI Governance option on the vendor can be, then the evidence in EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet, then the action for board AI liaison - Hypothesis scorecard against EU AI Act high-risk classification worksheet: supported / rejected / untestable - Owner and next date for board AI liaison in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm - What changes the vendor can be if a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy is later withdrawn