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: 5 records · use cases that answered at least one practice questionReported in place: 3 (60.0%)Pre-deployment testing
Reported in progress: 2 (40.0%)
Reported in place: 2 (40.0%)AI impact assessment
Reported in progress: 2 (40.0%)AI impact assessment
No answer reported: 1 (20.0%)
Reported in place: 2 (40.0%)Independent review
Reported not in place: 1 (20.0%)Independent review
No answer reported: 2 (40.0%)
Reported in place: 1 (20.0%)Ongoing monitoring
Reported in progress: 1 (20.0%)Ongoing monitoring
No answer reported: 3 (60.0%)
| 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 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 60% of 5 |
| AI impact assessment | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 80% | 40% of 5 |
| Independent review | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 60% | 40% of 5 |
| Ongoing monitoring | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 40% | 20% of 5 |
| Operator training | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 40% | 40% of 5 |
| Fail-safe | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 60% | 33% of 3 |
| Appeal process | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 60% | 0% of 2 |
| User and public consultation | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 80% | 60% of 5 |
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DOE | 0% | 0% | – | – | – | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2 |
| EAC | 100% | – | 0% | – | – | – | – | 100% | 1 |
| SSA | 100% | 100% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 1 |
| SBA | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 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 case | Stage | Test | AIA | Review | Monitor | Train | Fail-safe | Appeal | Consult |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI Chat Bot for IT User Services DOE · DOE-463 | Pilot | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported |
| LISA Chatbot Pilot DOE · DOE-671 | Pilot | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | Not applicable | Not applicable | Other or ambiguous answer |
| AI Answers in Clearinghouse Network EAC · EAC-1 | Pilot | Reported in place | No answer reported | Reported not in place | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | Reported in place |
| Policy Assistance Tool (PAT) SSA · R3116 | Pilot | Reported in place | Reported in place | Reported in place | Reported in progress | Reported in place | Reported in place | Not applicable | Reported in place |
Unanswered analytical questions
Generated from the data; for follow-up with agencies- 1 high-impact use cases mark an appeal process as not applicable. On what basis was each individual outcome judged not contestable?
- 2 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.