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.
Practice-by-practice evidence
Denominator: 3 records · use cases designated high-impactReported in place: 2 (66.7%)Pre-deployment testing
No answer reported: 1 (33.3%)
Reported in progress: 2 (66.7%)AI impact assessment
No answer reported: 1 (33.3%)
Reported in place: 1 (33.3%)Appeal process
Not applicable: 1 (33.3%)Appeal process
No answer reported: 1 (33.3%)
Reported in place: 2 (66.7%)User and public consultation
No answer reported: 1 (33.3%)
| Practice | In scope | In place | In progress | Not in place | N/A | Precluded or waived | Other | No answer | Answered | In place of applicable |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-deployment testing | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 67% | 67% of 3 |
| AI impact assessment | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 67% | 0% of 3 |
| Independent review | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 67% | 0% of 3 |
| Ongoing monitoring | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 67% | 67% of 3 |
| Operator training | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 67% | 67% of 3 |
| Fail-safe | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 67% | 67% of 3 |
| Appeal process | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 67% | 50% of 2 |
| User and public consultation | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 67% | 67% of 3 |
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.
| Testing | Impact assess. | Indep. review | Monitoring | Training | Fail-safe | Appeal | Consultation | n | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STATE | 67% | 0% | 0% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 50% | 67% | 3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI-Augmented Declassification Review STATE · R3213 | Deployed | Reported in place | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in place | Reported in place | Reported in place | Reported in place | Reported in place |
| Electronic Health Record AI Enhancements STATE · R3248 | Deployed | Reported in place | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in place | Reported in place | Reported in place | Not applicable | Reported in place |
| Live Consular AI Language Augmentation (LCALA) - Visa Interview Pilot STATE · R3267 | Pilot | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported |
Unanswered analytical questions
Generated from the data; for follow-up with agencies- 2 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?
- 1 high-impact use cases mark an appeal process as not applicable. On what basis was each individual outcome judged not contestable?
These are questions the inventory raises but cannot answer. They are not findings of non-compliance.