NIST AI RMF v1.0
AI Risk Management Framework Playbook - Suggested actions for trustworthy AI
This is a reference tool, not an authoritative source. For official documentation, visit airc.nist.gov.
72 All
govern — Govern (19 actions)
GOVERN-1.1Legal and regulatory requirements involving AI are understood, managed, and documented.
GOVERN-1.2The characteristics of trustworthy AI are integrated into organizational policies, processes, and procedures.
GOVERN-1.3Processes and procedures are in place to determine the needed level of risk management activities based on the organization's risk tolerance.
GOVERN-1.4The risk management process and its outcomes are established through transparent policies, procedures, and other controls based on organizational risk priorities.
GOVERN-1.5Ongoing monitoring and periodic review of the risk management process and its outcomes are planned, organizational roles and responsibilities are clearly defined, including determining the frequency of periodic review.
GOVERN-1.6Mechanisms are in place to inventory AI systems and are resourced according to organizational risk priorities.
GOVERN-1.7Processes and procedures are in place for decommissioning and phasing out of AI systems safely and in a manner that does not increase risks or decrease the organization’s trustworthiness.
GOVERN-2.1Roles and responsibilities and lines of communication related to mapping, measuring, and managing AI risks are documented and are clear to individuals and teams throughout the organization.
GOVERN-2.2The organization’s personnel and partners receive AI risk management training to enable them to perform their duties and responsibilities consistent with related policies, procedures, and agreements.
GOVERN-2.3Executive leadership of the organization takes responsibility for decisions about risks associated with AI system development and deployment.
GOVERN-3.1Decision-makings related to mapping, measuring, and managing AI risks throughout the lifecycle is informed by a diverse team (e.g., diversity of demographics, disciplines, experience, expertise, and backgrounds).
GOVERN-3.2Policies and procedures are in place to define and differentiate roles and responsibilities for human-AI configurations and oversight of AI systems.
GOVERN-4.1Organizational policies, and practices are in place to foster a critical thinking and safety-first mindset in the design, development, deployment, and uses of AI systems to minimize negative impacts.
GOVERN-4.2Organizational teams document the risks and potential impacts of the AI technology they design, develop, deploy, evaluate and use, and communicate about the impacts more broadly.
GOVERN-4.3Organizational practices are in place to enable AI testing, identification of incidents, and information sharing.
GOVERN-5.1Organizational policies and practices are in place to collect, consider, prioritize, and integrate feedback from those external to the team that developed or deployed the AI system regarding the potential individual and societal impacts related to AI risks.
GOVERN-5.2Mechanisms are established to enable AI actors to regularly incorporate adjudicated feedback from relevant AI actors into system design and implementation.
GOVERN-6.1Policies and procedures are in place that address AI risks associated with third-party entities, including risks of infringement of a third party’s intellectual property or other rights.
GOVERN-6.2Contingency processes are in place to handle failures or incidents in third-party data or AI systems deemed to be high-risk.
manage — Manage (13 actions)
MANAGE-1.1A determination is made as to whether the AI system achieves its intended purpose and stated objectives and whether its development or deployment should proceed.
MANAGE-1.2Treatment of documented AI risks is prioritized based on impact, likelihood, or available resources or methods.
MANAGE-1.3Responses to the AI risks deemed high priority as identified by the Map function, are developed, planned, and documented. Risk response options can include mitigating, transferring, avoiding, or accepting.
MANAGE-1.4Negative residual risks (defined as the sum of all unmitigated risks) to both downstream acquirers of AI systems and end users are documented.
MANAGE-2.1Resources required to manage AI risks are taken into account, along with viable non-AI alternative systems, approaches, or methods – to reduce the magnitude or likelihood of potential impacts.
MANAGE-2.2Mechanisms are in place and applied to sustain the value of deployed AI systems.
MANAGE-2.3Procedures are followed to respond to and recover from a previously unknown risk when it is identified.
MANAGE-2.4Mechanisms are in place and applied, responsibilities are assigned and understood to supersede, disengage, or deactivate AI systems that demonstrate performance or outcomes inconsistent with intended use.
MANAGE-3.1AI risks and benefits from third-party resources are regularly monitored, and risk controls are applied and documented.
MANAGE-3.2Pre-trained models which are used for development are monitored as part of AI system regular monitoring and maintenance.
MANAGE-4.1Post-deployment AI system monitoring plans are implemented, including mechanisms for capturing and evaluating input from users and other relevant AI actors, appeal and override, decommissioning, incident response, recovery, and change management.
MANAGE-4.2Measurable activities for continual improvements are integrated into AI system updates and include regular engagement with interested parties, including relevant AI actors.
MANAGE-4.3Incidents and errors are communicated to relevant AI actors including affected communities. Processes for tracking, responding to, and recovering from incidents and errors are followed and documented.
map — Map (18 actions)
MAP-1.1Intended purpose, potentially beneficial uses, context-specific laws, norms and expectations, and prospective settings in which the AI system will be deployed are understood and documented. Considerations include: specific set or types of users along with their expectations; potential positive and negative impacts of system uses to individuals, communities, organizations, society, and the planet; assumptions and related limitations about AI system purposes; uses and risks across the development or product AI lifecycle; TEVV and system metrics.
MAP-1.2Inter-disciplinary AI actors, competencies, skills and capacities for establishing context reflect demographic diversity and broad domain and user experience expertise, and their participation is documented. Opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration are prioritized.
MAP-1.3The organization’s mission and relevant goals for the AI technology are understood and documented.
MAP-1.4The business value or context of business use has been clearly defined or – in the case of assessing existing AI systems – re-evaluated.
MAP-1.5Organizational risk tolerances are determined and documented.
MAP-1.6System requirements (e.g., “the system shall respect the privacy of its users”) are elicited from and understood by relevant AI actors. Design decisions take socio-technical implications into account to address AI risks.
MAP-2.1The specific task, and methods used to implement the task, that the AI system will support is defined (e.g., classifiers, generative models, recommenders).
MAP-2.2Information 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 informed decisions and taking subsequent actions.
MAP-2.3Scientific integrity and TEVV considerations are identified and documented, including those related to experimental design, data collection and selection (e.g., availability, representativeness, suitability), system trustworthiness, and construct validation.
MAP-3.1Potential benefits of intended AI system functionality and performance are examined and documented.
MAP-3.2Potential costs, including non-monetary costs, which result from expected or realized AI errors or system functionality and trustworthiness - as connected to organizational risk tolerance - are examined and documented.
MAP-3.3Targeted application scope is specified and documented based on the system’s capability, established context, and AI system categorization.
MAP-3.4Processes for operator and practitioner proficiency with AI system performance and trustworthiness – and relevant technical standards and certifications – are defined, assessed and documented.
MAP-3.5Processes for human oversight are defined, assessed, and documented in accordance with organizational policies from GOVERN function.
MAP-4.1Approaches for mapping AI technology and legal risks of its components – including the use of third-party data or software – are in place, followed, and documented, as are risks of infringement of a third-party’s intellectual property or other rights.
MAP-4.2Internal risk controls for components of the AI system including third-party AI technologies are identified and documented.
MAP-5.1Likelihood and magnitude of each identified impact (both potentially beneficial and harmful) based on expected use, past uses of AI systems in similar contexts, public incident reports, feedback from those external to the team that developed or deployed the AI system, or other data are identified and documented.
MAP-5.2Practices and personnel for supporting regular engagement with relevant AI actors and integrating feedback about positive, negative, and unanticipated impacts are in place and documented.
measure — Measure (22 actions)
MEASURE-1.1Approaches and metrics for measurement of AI risks enumerated during the Map function are selected for implementation starting with the most significant AI risks. The risks or trustworthiness characteristics that will not – or cannot – be measured are properly documented.
MEASURE-1.2Appropriateness of AI metrics and effectiveness of existing controls is regularly assessed and updated including reports of errors and impacts on affected communities.
MEASURE-1.3Internal experts who did not serve as front-line developers for the system and/or independent assessors are involved in regular assessments and updates. Domain experts, users, AI actors external to the team that developed or deployed the AI system, and affected communities are consulted in support of assessments as necessary per organizational risk tolerance.
MEASURE-2.1Test sets, metrics, and details about the tools used during test, evaluation, validation, and verification (TEVV) are documented.
MEASURE-2.2Evaluations involving human subjects meet applicable requirements (including human subject protection) and are representative of the relevant population.
MEASURE-2.3AI system performance or assurance criteria are measured qualitatively or quantitatively and demonstrated for conditions similar to deployment setting(s). Measures are documented.
MEASURE-2.4The functionality and behavior of the AI system and its components – as identified in the MAP function – are monitored when in production.
MEASURE-2.5The 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.
MEASURE-2.6AI system is evaluated regularly for safety risks – as identified in the MAP function. The AI system to be deployed is demonstrated to be safe, its residual negative risk does not exceed the risk tolerance, and can fail safely, particularly if made to operate beyond its knowledge limits. Safety metrics implicate system reliability and robustness, real-time monitoring, and response times for AI system failures.
MEASURE-2.7AI system security and resilience – as identified in the MAP function – are evaluated and documented.
MEASURE-2.8Risks associated with transparency and accountability – as identified in the MAP function – are examined and documented.
MEASURE-2.9The AI model is explained, validated, and documented, and AI system output is interpreted within its context – as identified in the MAP function – and to inform responsible use and governance.
MEASURE-2.10Privacy risk of the AI system – as identified in the MAP function – is examined and documented.
MEASURE-2.11Fairness and bias – as identified in the MAP function – are evaluated and results are documented.
MEASURE-2.12Environmental impact and sustainability of AI model training and management activities – as identified in the MAP function – are assessed and documented.
MEASURE-2.13Effectiveness of the employed TEVV metrics and processes in the MEASURE function are evaluated and documented.
MEASURE-3.1Approaches, personnel, and documentation are in place to regularly identify and track existing, unanticipated, and emergent AI risks based on factors such as intended and actual performance in deployed contexts.
MEASURE-3.2Risk tracking approaches are considered for settings where AI risks are difficult to assess using currently available measurement techniques or where metrics are not yet available.
MEASURE-3.3Feedback processes for end users and impacted communities to report problems and appeal system outcomes are established and integrated into AI system evaluation metrics.
MEASURE-4.1Measurement approaches for identifying AI risks are connected to deployment context(s) and informed through consultation with domain experts and other end users. Approaches are documented.
MEASURE-4.2Measurement results regarding AI system trustworthiness in deployment context(s) and across AI lifecycle are informed by input from domain experts and other relevant AI actors to validate whether the system is performing consistently as intended. Results are documented.
MEASURE-4.3Measurable performance improvements or declines based on consultations with relevant AI actors including affected communities, and field data about context-relevant risks and trustworthiness characteristics, are identified and documented.