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.
Practice-by-practice evidence
Denominator: 9 records · use cases that answered at least one practice questionReported in placeReported in progressNot applicableNo answer reported
Independent review9
Ongoing monitoring9
Operator training9
User and public consultation
User and public consultation
Reported in progress: 3 (33.3%)User and public consultation
No answer reported: 6 (66.7%)
9Reported in progress: 3 (33.3%)User and public consultation
No answer reported: 6 (66.7%)
| 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 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0% | 0% of 9 |
| AI impact assessment | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0% | 0% of 9 |
| Independent review | 9 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 89% of 9 |
| Ongoing monitoring | 9 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 89% of 9 |
| Operator training | 9 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 89% of 9 |
| Fail-safe | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | n/a of 0 |
| Appeal process | 9 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 0% of 8 |
| User and public consultation | 9 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 33% | 0% of 9 |
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DOI | – | – | 89% | 89% | 89% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 9 |
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
9 records with at least one practice unanswered or in progressOpen in explorer| Use case | Stage | Test | AIA | Review | Monitor | Train | Fail-safe | Appeal | Consult |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lead attribution model DOI · DOI-0152 | Pre-deployment | No answer reported | No answer reported | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Not applicable | Not applicable | Reported in progress |
| Feature extraction and characterization for update of The National Map DOI · DOI-0131 | Pre-deployment | No answer reported | No answer reported | Reported in place | Reported in place | Reported in place | Not applicable | Reported in progress | No answer reported |
| Supervised learning for phycocyanin estimation from Sentinel-2 MSI in inland waters with independent validation DOI · DOI-0130 | Pre-deployment | No answer reported | No answer reported | Reported in place | Reported in place | Reported in place | Not applicable | Reported in progress | No answer reported |
| [Un]supervised clustering of [non-]earthquake signals commonly recorded on regional seismic networks DOI · DOI-0121 | Pre-deployment | No answer reported | No answer reported | Reported in place | Reported in place | Reported in place | Not applicable | Reported in progress | Reported in progress |
| Inference of PFAS precursor compositions DOI · DOI-0110 | Pre-deployment | No answer reported | No answer reported | Reported in place | Reported in place | Reported in place | Not applicable | Reported in progress | Reported in progress |
| Detecting and tracking reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) invasion in the Upper Mississippi River floodplain using remote sensing and artifial intelegence. DOI · DOI-0085 | Pre-deployment | No answer reported | No answer reported | Reported in place | Reported in place | Reported in place | Not applicable | Reported in progress | No answer reported |
| PFAS model of soils in the northeast DOI · DOI-0076 | Pre-deployment | No answer reported | No answer reported | Reported in place | Reported in place | Reported in place | Not applicable | Reported in progress | No answer reported |
| PFAS Groundwater Model DOI · DOI-0078 | Pre-deployment | No answer reported | No answer reported | Reported in place | Reported in place | Reported in place | Not applicable | Reported in progress | No answer reported |
| Water Time-Series Record Automation Framework development DOI · DOI-0036 | Pre-deployment | No answer reported | No answer reported | Reported in place | Reported in place | Reported in place | Not applicable | Reported in progress | No answer reported |
Unanswered analytical questions
Generated from the data; for follow-up with agencies- VA designated 21 use cases high-impact but answered none of the minimum-practice questions for any of them. Were the practices assessed, and where is that recorded?
- DOJ designated 7 use cases high-impact but answered none of the minimum-practice questions for any of them. Were the practices assessed, and where is that recorded?
- DOE designated 6 use cases high-impact but answered none of the minimum-practice questions for any of them. Were the practices assessed, and where is that recorded?
- USDA designated 3 use cases high-impact but answered none of the minimum-practice questions for any of them. Were the practices assessed, and where is that recorded?
- NCUA designated 3 use cases high-impact but answered none of the minimum-practice questions for any of them. Were the practices assessed, and where is that recorded?
These are questions the inventory raises but cannot answer. They are not findings of non-compliance.