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: 4 records · all use cases in the current filterReported in progress: 3 (75.0%)Pre-deployment testing
No answer reported: 1 (25.0%)
Reported in progress: 3 (75.0%)AI impact assessment
No answer reported: 1 (25.0%)
Reported in progress: 3 (75.0%)Operator training
Other or ambiguous answer: 1 (25.0%)
| 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 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 75% | 0% of 4 |
| AI impact assessment | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 75% | 0% of 4 |
| Independent review | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 0% of 4 |
| Ongoing monitoring | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 0% of 4 |
| Operator training | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 0% of 4 |
| Fail-safe | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 67% of 3 |
| Appeal process | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 0% of 1 |
| User and public consultation | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 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.
| Testing | Impact assess. | Indep. review | Monitoring | Training | Fail-safe | Appeal | Consultation | n | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBA | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 2 |
| DHS | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1 |
| DOI | – | – | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| License Plate Capture and Analysis DHS · DHS-2666 | Deployed | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Other or ambiguous answer | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in progress |
| CHS Q Business AI Assistant (theKraken) DOI · DOI-0169 | Pilot | No answer reported | No answer reported | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Not applicable | Not applicable | Reported in progress |
| AI Incident Summarization SBA · SBA-35 | Pre-deployment | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in place | Not applicable | Reported in progress |
| AI-Powered Search and Recovery SBA · SBA-41 | Pre-deployment | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in progress | Reported in place | Not applicable | Reported in progress |
Unanswered analytical questions
Generated from the data; for follow-up with agencies- 1 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?
- 3 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.