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: 26 records · use cases designated high-impact

Reported in placeNot applicablePrecluded by law or guidanceOther or ambiguous answer

Pre-deployment testing

Pre-deployment testing
Reported in place: 26 (100.0%)

AI impact assessment

AI impact assessment
Reported in place: 26 (100.0%)

Independent review

Independent review
Reported in place: 26 (100.0%)

Ongoing monitoring

Ongoing monitoring
Reported in place: 26 (100.0%)

Operator training

Operator training
Reported in place: 26 (100.0%)

Fail-safe

Fail-safe
Reported in place: 21 (80.8%)Fail-safe
Not applicable: 5 (19.2%)

Appeal process

Appeal process
Reported in place: 6 (23.1%)Appeal process
Not applicable: 17 (65.4%)Appeal process
Precluded by law or guidance: 3 (11.5%)

User and public consultation

User and public consultation
Reported in place: 16 (61.5%)User and public consultation
Other or ambiguous answer: 10 (38.5%)

Practice	In scope	In place	N/A	Precluded or waived	Other	Answered	In place of applicable
Pre-deployment testing	26	26	0	0	0	100%	100% of 26
AI impact assessment	26	26	0	0	0	100%	100% of 26
Independent review	26	26	0	0	0	100%	100% of 26
Ongoing monitoring	26	26	0	0	0	100%	100% of 26
Operator training	26	26	0	0	0	100%	100% of 26
Fail-safe	26	21	5	0	0	100%	100% of 21
Appeal process	26	6	17	3	0	100%	100% of 6
User and public consultation	26	16	0	0	10	100%	62% of 26

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%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	62%	26

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

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

Use case	Stage	Test	AIA	Review	Monitor	Train	Fail-safe	Appeal	Consult

Unanswered analytical questions

Generated from the data; for follow-up with agencies

17 high-impact use cases mark an appeal process as not applicable. On what basis was each individual outcome judged not contestable?
1 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.