Assess whether the board has been accurately briefed (b3bf7d)

SITUATION A university licensing an AI proctoring vendor has training-data provenance questionnaire in hand following a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy. Exam-readiness coordinator must determine whether the board has been accurately briefed for this AI Governance Vendors and Agentic Systems file.

DECISION Exam-readiness coordinator in a university licensing an AI proctoring vendor must choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact using training-data provenance questionnaire after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Exam-readiness coordinator can defend Policy or governance breach from training-data provenance questionnaire after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy in a AI Governance challenge. 2. Exam-readiness coordinator cannot defend Policy or governance breach from training-data provenance questionnaire; Model defect is what the extract actually supports after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy. 3. A customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy never reached the population in training-data provenance questionnaire — reopen intake, do not close the board has been. 4. Two facts in training-data provenance questionnaire after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy conflict for exam-readiness coordinator; hold this Vendors and Agentic Systems file.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Verify data provenance and the human-oversight gate exam-readiness coordinator can actually point to. 2. Walk the model input/output path recorded in training-data provenance questionnaire and mark each hop approved, shadow, or unlogged. 3. Verify data provenance and the human-oversight gate exam-readiness coordinator can actually point to. 4. For this AI Governance Vendors and Agentic Systems file, read training-data provenance questionnaire against a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy and write the one fact that would move the board has been for exam-readiness coordinator.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance / Vendors and Agentic Systems packet (training-data provenance questionnaire after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy). Lead with the AI Governance option training-data provenance questionnaire can support after a customer complaint that a chatbot invented a refund policy, then the two facts that force it, then the Monday action for exam-readiness coordinator in a university licensing an AI proctoring vendor.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line AI Governance option on the board has been, then the evidence in training-data provenance questionnaire, then the action for exam-readiness coordinator - Hypothesis scorecard against training-data provenance questionnaire: supported / rejected / untestable - Regulatory or exam hook Vendors and Agentic Systems would cite - Vendors and Agentic Systems finding in training-data provenance questionnaire that a second reviewer can re-perform