Assess whether the system is high-risk under the EU AI Act (7e0776)

SITUATION A journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased put post-deployment drift report the owner never signed in front of model-risk officer in a university licensing an AI proctoring vendor. This AI Governance / Policy and Oversight decision is the system is high-risk from post-deployment drift report the owner never signed, and the live options are Policy or governance breach, Model defect, Dual failure.

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 post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. The population in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed is the one a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased named, so Policy or governance breach follows for this Policy and Oversight file. 2. The population in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed is adjacent only to a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased; Model defect is the honest AI Governance call. 3. A university licensing an AI proctoring vendor already contained a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased before post-deployment drift report the owner never signed arrived; no new Policy and Oversight path. 4. Provenance on post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased is broken; do not pick Policy or governance breach or Model defect yet.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Map the approved-use case to the system the system is high-risk would bind. 2. Check intended purpose and inventory status against EU AI Act / exam-readiness language after a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased. 3. Map the approved-use case to the system the system is high-risk would bind. 4. For this AI Governance Policy and Oversight file, read post-deployment drift report the owner never signed against a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased 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 (post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased). The follow-on Policy and Oversight action is what model-risk officer 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 post-deployment drift report the owner never signed, then the action for model-risk officer - Hypothesis scorecard against post-deployment drift report the owner never signed: supported / rejected / untestable - Policy and Oversight finding in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed that a second reviewer can re-perform - Missing page in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a journalist asking if the hiring tool is biased, if any