IS — Integrity, Safety & Security
IS-09: Human oversight design
Design human review, override, escalation and appeal mechanisms proportionate to decision impact.
At a glance
- Pillar
- IS — Integrity, Safety & Security
- Priority
- critical
- Applies to
- High-risk systems
- Typical owner
- Business Owner
- VERITRAIL modules
- Control, Shield
- Control library
- v1.0.0
Evidence that demonstrates this control
Examples of records an assessor would expect to see. Until a named reviewer has examined them, evidence is labelled User-asserted or Missing evidence in VERITRAIL outputs, never Verified.
- Oversight design document
- Override/appeal procedures
- Oversight operation records
Indicative framework mappings
| Framework | References |
|---|---|
| NIST AI RMF | GOVERN 3.2, MAP 3.5 |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | A.9.2, A.6.2.6 |
| EU AI Act | Art. 14, Art. 26 |
Framework mappings are indicative VERITRAIL interpretations to support governance readiness and evidence collection. They do not constitute legal advice, a certification, or a determination of conformity with ISO/IEC 42001 or compliance with the EU AI Act or any other law.
Where the self-assessment asks about it
- FST-Q3 — Are explanations, disclosures, and appeal mechanisms available for affected individuals where appropriate?
- HUM-Q1 — Are human-review, override, escalation, and appeal mechanisms defined for high-impact AI decisions?
Related critical risk flags
- High-impact decisions lack defined human oversight — High-impact AI decisions without review, override or appeal raise fairness, safety and accountability exposure.
Last reviewed: