Assess whether the system is high-risk under the EU AI Act (635191)

SITUATION In a city using a hiring-screen algorithm, generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft is the evidence after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier. Board AI liaison has to pick Policy or governance breach or Model defect for this AI Governance Bias and Training Data close using generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft.

DECISION Board AI liaison in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm must choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact using generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Board AI liaison can defend Policy or governance breach from generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier in a AI Governance challenge. 2. Board AI liaison cannot defend Policy or governance breach from generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft; Model defect is what the extract actually supports after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier. 3. A business unit that already went live without a risk tier never reached the population in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft — reopen intake, do not close the system is high-risk. 4. Two facts in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier conflict for board AI liaison; hold this Bias and Training Data file.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Split policy-or-governance failure from a model defect using prompts, outputs, and human edits in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft. 2. Reproduce the incident row in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft and say whether it ever touched production data. 3. Split policy-or-governance failure from a model defect using prompts, outputs, and human edits in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft. 4. For this AI Governance Bias and Training Data file, read generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft against a business unit that already went live without a risk tier and write the one fact that would move the system is high-risk for board AI liaison.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance / Bias and Training Data packet (generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier). The follow-on Bias and Training Data action is what board AI liaison does next: implement the option, assign an owner, and log the missing 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 board AI liaison - Hypothesis scorecard against generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft: supported / rejected / untestable - Owner and next date for board AI liaison in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm - What changes the system is high-risk if a business unit that already went live without a risk tier is later withdrawn