Federal AI Intelligence
Menu
Snapshot · OMB 2025 inventory · processed Oct 11, 2026
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.

Agency
Stage1
High-impact
Topic
AI type1
Sourcing
Vendor
Function1
Start year

Only records with a parseable start date match a year filter.

AI type: Classical / predictive MLFunction: Forecasting and predictionStage: Deployed

Practice-by-practice evidence

Denominator: 4 records · use cases designated high-impact
Reported in placeNot applicableOther or ambiguous answerNo answer reported
PracticeIn scopeIn placeIn progressNot in placeN/APrecluded or waivedOtherNo answerAnsweredIn place of applicable
Pre-deployment testing4100000325%25% of 4
AI impact assessment4100000325%25% of 4
Independent review4100000325%25% of 4
Ongoing monitoring4100000325%25% of 4
Operator training4100000325%25% of 4
Fail-safe4100000325%25% of 4
Appeal process4000100325%0% of 3
User and public consultation4000001325%0% of 4

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 placeAnswered
Agency by governance practice
TestingImpact assess.Indep. reviewMonitoringTrainingFail-safeAppealConsultationn
VA––––––––2
DHS100%100%100%100%100%100%0%0%1
NCUA––––––––1

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 caseStageTestAIAReviewMonitorTrainFail-safeAppealConsult
Supervisory Stress Testing
NCUA · NCUA_ONES-02
DeployedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reported
Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM)
VA · VA-24-4152
DeployedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reported
REACH VET Suicide Risk Prediction and Recovery Engagement
VA · VA-24-4234
DeployedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reported

Unanswered analytical questions

Generated from the data; for follow-up with agencies
  1. 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.