AI Disclosures Are Moving Toward Audit-Style Scrutiny
Regulatory scrutiny of AI disclosures is increasingly focused on whether public claims can be supported with documented controls and evidence, signaling a shift from narrative explanations toward audit-style inspection readiness.
💡
TL;DR:
Regulators are increasingly treating AI disclosures like traditional compliance artifacts, focusing less on stated intent and more on whether claims can be supported with documented controls and evidence.
Regulators are increasingly treating AI disclosures like traditional compliance artifacts, focusing less on stated intent and more on whether claims can be supported with documented controls and evidence.
What you need to know
- The development: U.S. and EU regulatory frameworks are placing greater emphasis on evidence-backed AI disclosures, linking public statements about AI to internal controls, documentation, and inspection readiness.
- Why it is notable: Descriptive narratives about AI capabilities are drawing closer scrutiny, particularly where they cannot be supported by demonstrable governance practices.
- Who is paying attention: Executives and risk owners responsible for regulatory disclosures, AI governance, and compliance in regulated or high-scrutiny environments.
This post is for paying subscribers only
Already have an account? Sign in.