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
Stage
High-impact
Topic
AI type1
Sourcing1
Vendor
Function
Start year

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

AI type: Classical / predictive MLimpact_assessment: in_progressSourcing: Contract and in-house

Practice-by-practice evidence

Denominator: 4 records · use cases designated high-impact
Reported in placeReported in progressNot applicable
PracticeIn scopeIn placeIn progressNot in placeN/APrecluded or waivedOtherNo answerAnsweredIn place of applicable
Pre-deployment testing43100000100%75% of 4
AI impact assessment40400000100%0% of 4
Independent review40400000100%0% of 4
Ongoing monitoring43100000100%75% of 4
Operator training42200000100%50% of 4
Fail-safe42101000100%67% of 3
Appeal process42101000100%67% of 3
User and public consultation41300000100%25% 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
DOJ0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%1
DHS100%0%0%100%0%100%100%0%1
EPA100%0%0%100%100%0%0%0%1
STATE100%0%0%100%100%100%100%100%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

4 records with at least one practice unanswered or in progressOpen in explorer
Use caseStageTestAIAReviewMonitorTrainFail-safeAppealConsult
Verification Match Model
DHS · DHS-2384
DeployedReported in placeReported in progressReported in progressReported in placeReported in progressReported in placeReported in placeReported in progress
Fingerprint (Friction Ridge) Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
DOJ · DOJ-0296
DeployedReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressReported in progress
RCRA PA
EPA · 78
DeployedReported in placeReported in progressReported in progressReported in placeReported in placeNot applicableNot applicableReported in progress
AI-Augmented Declassification Review
STATE · R3213
DeployedReported in placeReported in progressReported in progressReported in placeReported in placeReported in placeReported in placeReported in place

Unanswered analytical questions

Generated from the data; for follow-up with agencies
  1. 4 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?
  2. 1 high-impact use cases mark an appeal process as not applicable. On what basis was each individual outcome judged not contestable?
  3. 1 high-impact use cases report using PII but give no link to a Privacy Impact Assessment. Is a PIA published elsewhere?
  4. 1 governance answers are ambiguous (for example, an answer option from a different question). What did the agency intend?

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