Governance and accountability

Governance evidence

What agencies reported about the OMB M-25-21 minimum practices for high-impact AI. This is a disclosure analysis, not an audit, a compliance finding or an official assessment. An unanswered question is missing evidence, not evidence that a safeguard is absent.

Governance report

Practice-by-practice evidence

Denominator: 20 records · deployed high-impact use cases

Reported in placeReported in progressNot applicableOther or ambiguous answer

Pre-deployment testing

Pre-deployment testing
Reported in place: 20 (100.0%)

AI impact assessment

AI impact assessment
Reported in place: 17 (85.0%)AI impact assessment
Reported in progress: 3 (15.0%)

Independent review

Independent review
Reported in place: 17 (85.0%)Independent review
Reported in progress: 3 (15.0%)

Ongoing monitoring

Ongoing monitoring
Reported in place: 18 (90.0%)Ongoing monitoring
Reported in progress: 2 (10.0%)

Operator training

Operator training
Reported in place: 19 (95.0%)Operator training
Reported in progress: 1 (5.0%)

Fail-safe

Fail-safe
Reported in place: 14 (70.0%)Fail-safe
Reported in progress: 1 (5.0%)Fail-safe
Not applicable: 5 (25.0%)

Appeal process

Appeal process
Not applicable: 20 (100.0%)

User and public consultation

User and public consultation
Reported in place: 11 (55.0%)User and public consultation
Other or ambiguous answer: 9 (45.0%)

Practice	In scope	In place	In progress	N/A	Other	Answered	In place of applicable
Pre-deployment testing	20	20	0	0	0	100%	100% of 20
AI impact assessment	20	17	3	0	0	100%	85% of 20
Independent review	20	17	3	0	0	100%	85% of 20
Ongoing monitoring	20	18	2	0	0	100%	90% of 20
Operator training	20	19	1	0	0	100%	95% of 20
Fail-safe	20	14	1	5	0	100%	93% of 15
Appeal process	20	0	0	20	0	100%	n/a of 0
User and public consultation	20	11	0	0	9	100%	55% of 20

Answered = records with any answer ÷ records in scope. In place of applicable = reported in place ÷ (in scope minus not applicable, precluded and waived). Unanswered records stay in that denominator, so the rate is a lower bound on reported evidence, not an estimate of real practice.

Agency-by-safeguard heatmap

Cell: share reported in place, among applicable recordsIn place Answered

Agency by governance practice
	Testing	Impact assess.	Indep. review	Monitoring	Training	Fail-safe	Appeal	Consultation	n
DHS	100%	85%	85%	90%	95%	93%	0%	55%	20

Hatched cells: the agency answered nothing for that practice, so there is no evidence either way. Compare agencies with care: each agency is one reporting unit, and portfolios differ in size and type.

Records requiring further investigation

3 records with at least one practice unanswered or in progressOpen in explorer

Use case	Stage	Test	AIA	Review	Monitor	Train	Fail-safe	Appeal	Consult
Passive Body Scanner DHS · DHS-2380	Deployed	Reported in place	Reported in progress	Reported in progress	Reported in progress	Reported in progress	Reported in progress	Not applicable	Other or ambiguous answer
CBP Translate DHS · DHS-2388	Deployed	Reported in place	Reported in progress	Reported in progress	Reported in progress	Reported in place	Not applicable	Not applicable	Reported in place
Mobile Fortify DHS · DHS-2731	Deployed	Reported in place	Reported in progress	Reported in progress	Reported in place	Reported in place	Reported in place	Not applicable	Reported in place

Unanswered analytical questions

Generated from the data; for follow-up with agencies

3 high-impact use cases are reported as deployed while their AI impact assessment is reported in progress. Was deployment authorised before the assessment was complete?
21 high-impact use cases mark an appeal process as not applicable. On what basis was each individual outcome judged not contestable?
2 high-impact use cases report using PII but give no link to a Privacy Impact Assessment. Is a PIA published elsewhere?

These are questions the inventory raises but cannot answer. They are not findings of non-compliance.