Assess whether the system is high-risk under the EU AI Act (243cb6)

SITUATION After a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable', generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft is what model-risk officer can touch in a university licensing an AI proctoring vendor. AI Governance will live with Policy or governance breach versus Model defect on this Policy and Oversight file.

DECISION Model-risk officer in a university licensing an AI proctoring vendor must choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact using generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Authorize Policy or governance breach now; generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft already has the discriminator after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'. 2. Keep Model defect in force until generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft is completed after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' for model-risk officer. 3. Treat generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft as Dual failure because both readings appear after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'. 4. Refuse a AI Governance close: model-risk officer does not have the decision the system is high-risk turns on in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Walk the model input/output path recorded in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft and mark each hop approved, shadow, or unlogged. 2. Verify data provenance and the human-oversight gate model-risk officer can actually point to. 3. Walk the model input/output path recorded in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft and mark each hop approved, shadow, or unlogged. 4. For this AI Governance Policy and Oversight file, read generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft against a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' and write the one fact that would move the system is high-risk for model-risk officer.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance / Policy and Oversight packet (generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'). If generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft cannot force a AI Governance label under Policy and Oversight, stop. If generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' cannot support Policy or governance breach versus Model defect on this AI Governance Policy and Oversight close, model-risk officer must leave the classification unresolved and name the missing control or provenance fact.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line AI Governance option on the system is high-risk, then the evidence in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft, then the action for model-risk officer - Hypothesis scorecard against generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft: supported / rejected / untestable - Missing page in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable', if any - Regulatory or exam hook Policy and Oversight would cite