Agency dossier · FCA
Farm Credit Administration
3 reported use cases, 0.1% of all federal records. Rank reflects what was reported, not performance.
#37by records#32by deployed#15by high-impact#34by completenessof 41 agencies
Disclosure completeness56%Mean of 12 core fields
Technology portfolio
Click a segment for recordsMission mix
Topic area as reportedLifecycle
3 recordsWithin each stageHigh-impact · Gen./agentic
Pre-deployment0%100%
Lifecycle timeline
By agency-reported start yearNo parseable start dates reported3 records in this view leave the start-date field blank or unparseable, so no timeline can be drawn from the source data.
Position against all agencies
This agency vs the federal inventoryDeployed share0%vs 29%
High-impact share0%vs 12%
Generative or agentic100%vs 27%
Sourcing reported0%vs 44%
In-house development0%vs 28%
Disclosure completeness56%vs 67%
Cyan: FCA. Ring: all 3,611 records. Differences describe reporting, not quality.
Governance evidence
0 high-impact use cases · share reported in placeThis agency designated no use cases as high-impact, so the minimum-practice questions did not apply.
No answer is missing evidence, not evidence that a safeguard is absent. Click a segment to open those records.
Sourcing and vendors
Sourcing reported for 0%No vendor on the standard list.
Comparable portfolios
Most similar technology mixSimilarity is the cosine of each agency's AI-classification counts (unreported excluded); agencies with 10+ records. Click to compare side by side.
Operational functions
Keyword-derived tagsField completeness vs. all agencies
Share of records with the field filledStage
100% vs 91%
High-impact designation
67% vs 88%
Topic area
100% vs 83%
AI classification
100% vs 82%
Problem
100% vs 84%
Benefits
100% vs 82%
Outputs
100% vs 79%
Sourcing
0% vs 44%
Start date
0% vs 39%
ATO
0% vs 43%
PII
0% vs 42%
Custom code
0% vs 47%
Bar: this agency. White tick: all agencies. A gap is a reporting gap, not a finding about the systems.