Assess whether the system is high-risk under the EU AI Act (c13b98)

SITUATION Chief AI officer received post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a DPA inquiry about training on European user data in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm. Policy or governance breach or Model defect must follow from that extract if the file can settle whether the system is high-risk under the EU AI Act.

DECISION Chief AI officer in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm 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 DPA inquiry about training on European user data.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Chief AI officer can defend Policy or governance breach from post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a DPA inquiry about training on European user data in a AI Governance challenge. 2. Chief AI officer cannot defend Policy or governance breach from post-deployment drift report the owner never signed; Model defect is what the extract actually supports after a DPA inquiry about training on European user data. 3. A DPA inquiry about training on European user data never reached the population in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed — reopen intake, do not close the system is high-risk. 4. Two facts in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a DPA inquiry about training on European user data conflict for chief AI officer; hold this Policy and Oversight file.

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 DPA inquiry about training on European user data. 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 DPA inquiry about training on European user data and write the one fact that would move the system is high-risk for chief AI 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 DPA inquiry about training on European user data). Lead with the AI Governance option post-deployment drift report the owner never signed can support after a DPA inquiry about training on European user data, then the two facts that force it, then the Monday action for chief AI officer in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm.

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 chief AI 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 DPA inquiry about training on European user data, if any