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: 5 records · use cases that answered at least one practice questionReported in placeNot applicableNo answer reported
AI impact assessment5
Independent review5
User and public consultation
User and public consultation
Reported in place: 2 (40.0%)User and public consultation
No answer reported: 3 (60.0%)
5Reported in place: 2 (40.0%)User and public consultation
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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0% | 0% of 5 |
| AI impact assessment | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 60% | 60% of 5 |
| Independent review | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 60% | 60% of 5 |
| Ongoing monitoring | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0% | 0% of 5 |
| Operator training | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0% | 0% of 5 |
| Fail-safe | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0% | 0% of 5 |
| Appeal process | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 60% | 0% of 2 |
| User and public consultation | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 40% | 40% 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FERC | – | 100% | 100% | – | – | – | 0% | – | 3 |
| EAC | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 100% | 2 |
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
5 records with at least one practice unanswered or in progressOpen in explorer| Use case | Stage | Test | AIA | Review | Monitor | Train | Fail-safe | Appeal | Consult |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grants Lifecycle Application System EAC · EAC-3 | Deployed | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | Reported in place |
| Routing emails from shared inboxes EAC · EAC-4 | Pilot | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | Reported in place |
| Improve Safety Inspections Use Case FERC · FERC-0002 | Pre-deployment | No answer reported | Reported in place | Reported in place | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | Not applicable | No answer reported |
| Enhance Market Surveillance and Fraud Detection Use Case FERC · FERC-0003 | Pre-deployment | No answer reported | Reported in place | Reported in place | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | Not applicable | No answer reported |
| Support Interconnection Request Responses Use Case FERC · FERC-0004 | Pre-deployment | No answer reported | Reported in place | Reported in place | No answer reported | No answer reported | No answer reported | Not applicable | No answer reported |
Unanswered analytical questions
Generated from the data; for follow-up with agencies- VA designated 215 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 41 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 27 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?
- DHS designated 16 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 5 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?
- TREAS designated 4 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?
- 7 high-impact use cases report using PII but give no link to a Privacy Impact Assessment. Is a PIA published elsewhere?
- 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.