Law / Frameworks / NIST AI RMF / Map
NIST AI RMF, MapMAP 2.2
Information about the AI system’s knowledge limits and how system output may be utilized and overseen by humans is documented. Documentation provides sufficient information to assist relevant AI actors when making decisions and taking subsequent actions.NIST AI Risk Management Framework, version 1.0, January 2023 (NIST AI 100-1), MAP 2.2
We read each law below as bearing on this control. That does not mean the control, done well, meets the law: what each law asks is on its own page. Law library as of .
- 11
- laws
- 8
- jurisdictions
- 0
- with court rulings behind them
- 8
- not yet in force
- 2
- proposed, not law
Related controls in other frameworks the same duties, in at least two laws we track, reach both
- NIST AI 600-1GAI-RISK-07 Human-AI Configuration, 5 laws
- NIST AI 600-1GAI-RISK-08 Information Integrity, 4 laws
- MIT mitigations4.1 System Documentation, 5 laws
- MIT mitigations4.2 Risk Disclosure, 4 laws
- MIT mitigations4.6 User Rights & Recourse, 4 laws
- FINOS AIGFAIR-DET-021 Agent Decision Audit and Explainability, 5 laws
- ETSI EN 304 2235.1.3-2 Threats developers cannot resolve are passed to operators and on to end-users., 4 laws
- ETSI EN 304 2235.3.1-1 Users told where and how their data is used, accessed and stored, with..., 4 laws
- ETSI EN 304 2235.3.1-2.1 That guidance covers proper use, limits and likely failure modes., 4 laws
A law in force is unmarked; the rest wear their state: not yet in force proposed
AI risk obligations
6 laws, 3 jurisdictions| Jurisdiction | Law | What it asks, as read here |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical Decision Support Systems Bias Mitigation Act (SB 503) from , in 7 weeks |
As a developer, make available to deployers, on request or at initial sale and on material updates, a statement of the system's intended uses and known or reasonably foreseeable risks, with documentation of training data, evaluation, data governance, intended benefits, and recommendations for use and monitoring |
|
| AI Act, Article 11 (technical documentation) from , in 13 months |
If you are the provider of a high-risk AI system, draw up its technical documentation before you place the system on the market or put it into service, and keep it up to date. Draw up the technical documentation so that it demonstrates the system complies with the Chapter III, Section 2 requirements and gives national competent authorities and notified bodies the information they need, in a clear and comprehensive form, to assess that compliance; include at least the elements set out in Annex IV. +1 more |
|
| AI Act, Article 13 (transparency and provision of information to deployers) from , in 13 months |
Supply the system with instructions for use in an appropriate digital format or otherwise, containing concise, complete, correct and clear information that is relevant, accessible and comprehensible to deployers. Put in the instructions at least: your identity and contact details, and those of your authorised representative where applicable; the system's characteristics, capabilities and limitations of performance (Article 13(3), point (b)); the changes to the system and its performance that you pre-determined at the initial conformity assessment; the human oversight measures of Article 14, including the technical measures that help deployers interpret the output; the computational and hardware resources needed, the expected lifetime and the necessary maintenance and care measures, including software updates; and, where relevant, a description of the mechanisms that let deployers properly collect, store and interpret the logs in accordance with Article 12. +1 more |
|
| AI Act, Article 14 (human oversight) from , in 13 months |
Provide the system to the deployer so that the natural persons assigned to oversee it can understand its capacities and limitations and duly monitor its operation, including detecting and addressing anomalies, dysfunctions and unexpected performance. |
|
| AI Act, Articles 60 and 61 (testing in real world conditions outside AI regulatory sandboxes, with informed consent) |
If you test with deployers or prospective deployers, inform them of all aspects of the testing relevant to their decision to participate, give them the instructions for use of the system referred to in Article 13, and conclude an agreement specifying your roles and responsibilities to ensure compliance with the provisions for testing in real world conditions and with other applicable Union and national law (Article 60(4), point (h)). |
|
| AI-based electronic monitoring and automated employment decision systems in employment and public services (S4075 / A4981) proposed |
If you are a vendor of an automated employment decision system seeking approval, give the independent auditor or the department documentation of the system's design and development, its intended purpose and outputs, and an analysis of its accuracy, reliability, validity, and error rates. |
AI governance
4 laws, 4 jurisdictions| Jurisdiction | Law | What it asks, as read here |
|---|---|---|
| Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act from , in 7 weeks |
Before or when you deploy a new or substantially modified frontier model, publish on your website a transparency report giving your website, a way for a person to reach you, the model's release date, its supported languages and output modalities, its intended uses, and any generally applicable restrictions on its use. |
|
| Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed chapter 93M, Senate version of House bill 5576) proposed |
If you are a frontier developer, publish a transparency report before or concurrently with deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model; a large frontier developer adds summaries of its catastrophic risk assessments. |
|
| Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (RAISE Act) from , in 7 weeks |
Before or at the same time as you deploy a new or substantially modified frontier model, publish on your website a transparency report giving your website, a way for a person to contact you, the model's release date, its supported languages and output modalities, its intended uses, and any general restrictions or conditions on its use; publishing this in a model card or system card satisfies the duty. |
|
| Federal Law No. 243-FZ, Article 8, Duties of Sovereign and National Foundation Model Developers from , in 4 months |
If you develop a sovereign or national large foundation AI model, take organizational and technical measures to secure it, define operating rules covering restrictions, conditions of use, updates, and decommissioning, and maintain technical documentation of its key parameters and limitations sufficient to assess the safety of its application. |
AI sector rules
1 law, 1 jurisdiction| Jurisdiction | Law | What it asks, as read here |
|---|---|---|
| Automated Employment-Related Decision Technology Act from , in 11 months |
If you develop automated employment-related decision technology, give a deployer the information the deployer needs to meet its own notice duties, unless your technology was not advertised or configured for that use. |
Full text of the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, public domain (a US government work). Every control of the framework.