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
Sourcing
Vendor1
Function
Start year

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

AI type: Computer visionVendor: NEC

Practice-by-practice evidence

Denominator: 10 records · all use cases in the current filter
Reported in placeReported in progressNot applicableOther or ambiguous answerNo answer reported
PracticeIn scopeIn placeIn progressNot in placeN/APrecluded or waivedOtherNo answerAnsweredIn place of applicable
Pre-deployment testing10710000280%70% of 10
AI impact assessment10620000280%60% of 10
Independent review10620000280%60% of 10
Ongoing monitoring10710000280%70% of 10
Operator training10700001280%70% of 10
Fail-safe10710000280%70% of 10
Appeal process10210500280%40% of 5
User and public consultation10710000280%70% of 10

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
DHS70%60%60%70%70%70%40%70%10

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
Mobile Fortify
DHS · DHS-2731
DeployedReported in placeReported in progressReported in progressReported in placeReported in placeReported in placeNot applicableReported in place
Mobile Fortify
DHS · DHS-2577
DeployedReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressOther or ambiguous answerReported in progressReported in progressReported in progress
Process Efficiency Traveler Identity for Airline Check-in and Bag Drop
DHS · DHS-2417
DeployedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reported
Vault Access Log (SPVAA)
DHS · DHS-401
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. 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?
  2. 5 high-impact use cases mark an appeal process as not applicable. On what basis was each individual outcome judged not contestable?
  3. 2 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.