Law / Frameworks / NIST AI RMF / Measure
NIST AI RMF, MeasureMEASURE 2.5
The AI system to be deployed is demonstrated to be valid and reliable. Limitations of the generalizability beyond the conditions under which the technology was developed are documented.NIST AI Risk Management Framework, version 1.0, January 2023 (NIST AI 100-1), MEASURE 2.5
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 .
- 7
- laws
- 5
- jurisdictions
- 0
- with court rulings behind them
- 1
- not yet in force
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, 2 laws
- NIST AI 600-1GAI-RISK-04 Data Privacy, 2 laws
- NIST AI 600-1GAI-RISK-09 Information Security, 2 laws
- NIST AI 200-24.3 Composing a TEVV Toolbox, 3 laws
- NIST AI 200-22.2 Define & Construct, 2 laws
- OWASP LLM Top 10LLM01:2026 Prompt Injection, 2 laws
- OWASP LLM Top 10LLM02:2026 Sensitive Information Disclosure, 2 laws
- OWASP LLM Top 10LLM04:2026 Supply Chain, 2 laws
- 1 more in the OWASP LLM Top 10
- OWASP Agentic Top 10ASI01 Agent Goal Hijack, 2 laws
- OWASP Agentic Top 10ASI03 Identity and Privilege Abuse, 2 laws
- OWASP Agentic Top 10ASI04 Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities, 2 laws
- MIT mitigations4.1 System Documentation, 2 laws
- MIT mitigations2.1 Model & Infrastructure Security, 2 laws
- MIT mitigations2.3 Model Safety Engineering, 2 laws
- 2 more in the MIT mitigations
- FINOS AIGFAIR-DET-021 Agent Decision Audit and Explainability, 2 laws
- FINOS AIGFAIR-PREV-007 Legal and Contractual Frameworks for AI Systems, 2 laws
- FINOS AIGFAIR-PREV-008 Quality of Service (QoS) and DDoS Prevention for AI Systems, 2 laws
- 5 more in the FINOS AIGF
- ETSI EN 304 2235.1.2-2 System built to hold up against adversarial attacks, unexpected inputs and failures., 2 laws
- ETSI EN 304 2235.1.3-1 Threat modelling and risk management, reviewed regularly and covering..., 2 laws
- ETSI EN 304 2235.2.1-4 Sensitive data such as training and test sets protected from unauthorised access., 2 laws
- 1 more in the ETSI EN 304 223
A law in force is unmarked; the rest wear their state: not yet in force
AI sector rules
6 laws, 5 jurisdictions| Jurisdiction | Law | What it asks, as read here |
|---|---|---|
| SB 63 (2026), Artificial Intelligence in Health Insurance Prior Authorization |
Make prominent written disclosure of your use of artificial intelligence in utilization review in your policies and procedures, review its outcomes periodically for accuracy, and keep patient data used in that review within its stated purpose under HIPAA. |
|
| MiFID II Algorithmic Trading Controls: Resilient Systems, Testing, Kill Functionality, Records and Notification (Article 17 and RTS 6) |
Before deploying or substantially updating an algorithmic trading system, trading algorithm or algorithmic trading strategy, establish clearly delineated methodologies to develop and test it, have a person designated by senior management authorize the deployment or update, and design the methodologies to ensure that the system, algorithm or strategy does not behave in an unintended manner, complies with your obligations and the rules and systems of the trading venues you access, does not contribute to disorderly trading conditions and continues to work effectively in stressed market conditions; the authorization and the testing methodologies of Article 5(2) to (5) apply only to trading algorithms leading to order execution (Article 5(1), (2), (4) and (6)). Perform a self-assessment and validation process annually and on that basis issue a validation report that reviews, evaluates and validates your algorithmic trading systems, trading algorithms and strategies, your governance, accountability and approval framework, your business continuity arrangement and your overall compliance with Article 17 of Directive 2014/65/EU; have the risk management function draw up the report, have the internal audit function audit it where one exists, obtain the approval of senior management, and remedy any deficiencies it identifies (Article 9). As part of that self-assessment, test that your algorithmic trading systems and the controls in Articles 12 to 18 can withstand increased order flows or market stresses, with high messaging volume tests and high trade volume tests using the highest volumes of the previous six months multiplied by two, carried out in a way that does not affect the production environment (Article 10). |
|
| MiFID II Suitability Assessment for Investment Advice and Portfolio Management, Including Automated and Semi-Automated Systems (Article 25(2) and Delegated Regulation 2017/565 Article 54) |
Take reasonable steps to ensure that the information collected about your clients is reliable, including by ensuring that all tools, such as risk assessment profiling tools or tools to assess a client's knowledge and experience, are fit-for-purpose and appropriately designed for use with your clients, with any limitations identified and actively mitigated through the suitability assessment process (Article 54(7), point (b)). |
|
| Model Management Standards: governance, validation and monitoring of the models a bank uses to decide, including artificial intelligence models |
Document, record, track and report validation findings across all models to Senior Management and the Board at least once a year (Section 3.7.9). |
|
| Suitability for MiFID business: personal recommendations and decisions to trade, including advice given through an automated or semi-automated system |
Take reasonable steps to ensure that the information collected about your clients is reliable, including by ensuring that all tools, such as risk assessment profiling tools or tools to assess a client's knowledge and experience, used in the suitability assessment process are fit-for-purpose and appropriately designed for use with your clients, with any limitations identified and actively mitigated, and that the questions used are likely to be understood by clients and capture an accurate reflection of the client's objectives and needs (COBS 9A.2.9R). |
|
| Interagency Supervisory Guidance on Model Risk Management (2026 revision) |
Validate a model before its first use. Where an urgent business need requires use before validation is complete, give greater attention to the model's limitations, inform relevant stakeholders of them, and set controls such as limits on use or closer monitoring of performance. Validate conceptual soundness, compare model outputs with real-world outcomes, and monitor model performance on an ongoing basis, considering adjustment, recalibration or redevelopment when performance deviates meaningfully from expectations. |
AI risk obligations
1 law, 1 jurisdiction| Jurisdiction | Law | What it asks, as read here |
|---|---|---|
| AI Act, Article 15 (accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity) from , in 13 months |
If you are the provider of a high-risk AI system, design and develop it to achieve an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity, held consistently throughout its lifecycle. |
Full text of the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, public domain (a US government work). Every control of the framework.