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
Stage1
High-impact
Topic
AI type
Sourcing
Vendor
Function
Start year

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

feedback: affirmativeStage: Pilot

Practice-by-practice evidence

Denominator: 12 records · all use cases in the current filter
Reported in placeReported in progressReported not in placeNot applicableNo answer reported
PracticeIn scopeIn placeIn progressNot in placeN/APrecluded or waivedOtherNo answerAnsweredIn place of applicable
Pre-deployment testing12911000192%75% of 12
AI impact assessment12620000467%50% of 12
Independent review12722000192%58% of 12
Ongoing monitoring12540000375%42% of 12
Operator training12630000375%50% of 12
Fail-safe12500400375%63% of 8
Appeal process12000900375%0% of 3
User and public consultation1212000000100%100% of 12

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
SBA100%100%100%100%100%100%0%100%4
EAC33%–0%––––100%3
DOE67%0%33%0%0%100%0%100%3
FERC100%100%100%100%100%100%0%100%1
SSA100%100%100%0%100%100%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

7 records with at least one practice unanswered or in progressOpen in explorer
Use caseStageTestAIAReviewMonitorTrainFail-safeAppealConsult
Microsoft Co-Pilot
DOE · DOE-518
PilotReported in placeNo answer reportedReported in placeReported in progressReported in progressNot applicableNot applicableReported in place
Drone Imagery Analysis
DOE · DOE-539
PilotReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressReported in placeNot applicableReported in place
Soil Moisture Modeling
DOE · DOE-545
PilotReported in placeReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressReported in placeNot applicableReported in place
AI Answers in Clearinghouse Network
EAC · EAC-1
PilotReported in placeNo answer reportedReported not in placeNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedReported in place
Internal Generative AI Tools for Staff Productivity
EAC · EAC-2
PilotReported not in placeNo answer reportedReported not in placeNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedReported in place
Routing emails from shared inboxes
EAC · EAC-4
PilotNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedReported in place
Policy Assistance Tool (PAT)
SSA · R3116
PilotReported in placeReported in placeReported in placeReported in progressReported in placeReported in placeNot applicableReported in place

Unanswered analytical questions

Generated from the data; for follow-up with agencies
  1. 1 high-impact use cases mark an appeal process as not applicable. On what basis was each individual outcome judged not contestable?
  2. 7 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.