Assess whether the vendor can be used in a regulated process (97f56b)

SITUATION A live AI Governance Vendors and Agentic Systems file in a bank preparing for a model-risk exam now turns on generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after an examiner request for the current model inventory. Board AI liaison should state what that extract proves for whether the vendor can be used in a regulated process.

DECISION Board AI liaison 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 generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after an examiner request for the current model inventory. The question on that file is whether the vendor can be used in a regulated process.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. An examiner request for the current model inventory is noise around an already-controlled Vendors and Agentic Systems process in a bank preparing for a model-risk exam, given generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft. 2. An examiner request for the current model inventory is the event in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft that forces Policy or governance breach for board AI liaison under AI Governance. 3. Generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft shows a one-file miss after an examiner request for the current model inventory, not a Vendors and Agentic Systems program failure. 4. Generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft cannot decide the vendor can be yet after an examiner request for the current model inventory; hold is the only AI Governance close a bank preparing for a model-risk exam can defend.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Split policy-or-governance failure from a model defect using prompts, outputs, and human edits in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft. 2. Reproduce the incident row in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft and say whether it ever touched production data. 3. Split policy-or-governance failure from a model defect using prompts, outputs, and human edits in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft. 4. For this AI Governance Vendors and Agentic Systems file, read generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft against an examiner request for the current model inventory 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 / Vendors and Agentic Systems packet (generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after an examiner request for the current model inventory). The follow-on Vendors and Agentic Systems 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 generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft, then the action for board AI liaison - Hypothesis scorecard against generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft: supported / rejected / untestable - What changes the vendor can be if an examiner request for the current model inventory is later withdrawn - Named option among Policy or governance breach, Model defect, Dual failure and the fact that kills the others