Assess whether a shadow system must be decommissioned this quarter (cde93b)
August 31, 2026 · SmartSolo
Situation
A shadow system must sits with board AI liaison because a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' hit a retailer using generative AI in customer service. Evidence is post-deployment drift report the owner never signed; write the AI Governance Policy and Oversight option that extract can carry.
Decision
Board AI liaison in a retailer using generative AI in customer service must choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact using post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'.
Hypotheses to test
- The population in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed is the one a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' named, so Policy or governance breach follows for this Policy and Oversight file.
- The population in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed is adjacent only to a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'; Model defect is the honest AI Governance call.
- A retailer using generative AI in customer service already contained a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' before post-deployment drift report the owner never signed arrived; no new Policy and Oversight path.
- Provenance on post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' is broken; do not pick Policy or governance breach or Model defect yet.
Analysis required
- Split policy-or-governance failure from a model defect using prompts, outputs, and human edits in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed.
- Reproduce the incident row in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed and say whether it ever touched production data.
- Split policy-or-governance failure from a model defect using prompts, outputs, and human edits in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed.
- For this AI Governance Policy and Oversight file, read post-deployment drift report the owner never signed against a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' and write the one fact that would move a shadow system must for board AI liaison.
Recommendation
Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance / Policy and Oversight packet (post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'). The follow-on Policy and Oversight action is what board AI liaison does next: implement the option, assign an owner, and log the missing fact.
Explore more
More AI Governance prompts
- Assess whether deprecation of a legacy scorecard creates a governance gap
- Assess whether the inventory can be represented to an examiner as complete
- Assess whether the vendor can be used in a regulated process (d9ad6c)
- Assess whether a shadow system must be decommissioned this quarter (3846cb)
- Assess whether the system is high-risk under the EU AI Act (e7da43)
Explore related decision areas
See governed multi-model AI on your own prompt
Compare GPT-5, Claude, and Gemini side by side, with human review and a decision record built in.

