Assess whether the system is high-risk under the EU AI Act (bf8f2e)

SITUATION Exam-readiness coordinator is responsible for the system is high-risk in a university licensing an AI proctoring vendor, using hiring-tool adverse-impact tables as the only working extract. A journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased is what reset the timeline 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 hiring-tool adverse-impact tables after a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Authorize Policy or governance breach now; hiring-tool adverse-impact tables already has the discriminator after a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased. 2. Keep Model defect in force until hiring-tool adverse-impact tables is completed after a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased for exam-readiness coordinator. 3. Treat hiring-tool adverse-impact tables as Dual failure because both readings appear after a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased. 4. Refuse a AI Governance close: exam-readiness coordinator does not have the decision the system is high-risk turns on in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Reproduce the incident row in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables and say whether it ever touched production data. 2. Split policy-or-governance failure from a model defect using prompts, outputs, and human edits in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables. 3. Reproduce the incident row in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables and say whether it ever touched production data. 4. For this AI Governance Vendors and Agentic Systems file, read hiring-tool adverse-impact tables against a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased and write the one fact that would move the system is high-risk 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 (hiring-tool adverse-impact tables after a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased). The follow-on Vendors and Agentic Systems action is what exam-readiness coordinator 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 hiring-tool adverse-impact tables, then the action for exam-readiness coordinator - Hypothesis scorecard against hiring-tool adverse-impact tables: supported / rejected / untestable - Vendors and Agentic Systems finding in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables that a second reviewer can re-perform - Missing page in hiring-tool adverse-impact tables after a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased, if any