Assess whether the vendor can be used in a regulated process (0f0881)

SITUATION Board AI liaison in a bank preparing for a model-risk exam has one working extract — post-deployment drift report the owner never signed — after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'. If post-deployment drift report the owner never signed cannot support the vendor can be, the only defensible AI Governance output is hold.

DECISION Board AI liaison in a bank preparing for a model-risk exam 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 board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Board AI liaison can defend Policy or governance breach from post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' in a AI Governance challenge. 2. Board AI liaison 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 board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'. 3. A board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' never reached the population in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed — reopen intake, do not close the vendor can be. 4. Two facts in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' conflict for board AI liaison; hold this Vendors and Agentic Systems file.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Reproduce the incident row in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed 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 post-deployment drift report the owner never signed. 3. Reproduce the incident row in post-deployment drift report the owner never signed and say whether it ever touched production data. 4. For this AI Governance Vendors and Agentic Systems file, read post-deployment drift report the owner never signed against a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable' and write the one fact that would move the vendor can be for board AI liaison.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance / Vendors and Agentic Systems packet (post-deployment drift report the owner never signed after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable'). Lead with the AI Governance option post-deployment drift report the owner never signed can support after a board deck that called the system 'fully explainable', then the two facts that force it, then the Monday action for board AI liaison in a bank preparing for a model-risk exam.