Assess whether the system is high-risk under the EU AI Act (cd09a7)

SITUATION Post-deployment drift report the owner never signed arrived with a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose for chief AI officer. That is a AI Governance Policy and Oversight decision on the system is high-risk in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm.

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 new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Post-deployment drift report the owner never signed reads as Policy or governance breach once a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose is lined up to the same AI Governance population. 2. Post-deployment drift report the owner never signed is closer to Model defect after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose; Policy or governance breach would over-claim this Policy and Oversight extract. 3. Dual failure is still live in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed for chief AI officer in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm. 4. Post-deployment drift report the owner never signed is missing the fact chief AI officer needs after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose; stop this AI Governance close.

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 new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose. 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 new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose 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 new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose). Lead with the AI Governance option post-deployment drift report the owner never signed can support after a new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose, 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 new use case bolted onto a model approved for a narrower purpose, if any