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.

monitoring: in_progressStage: Pilot

Practice-by-practice evidence

Denominator: 8 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 testing8340000188%38% of 8
AI impact assessment8150000275%13% of 8
Independent review8340000188%38% of 8
Ongoing monitoring80800000100%0% of 8
Operator training81700000100%13% of 8
Fail-safe85003000100%100% of 5
Appeal process80008000100%n/a of 0
User and public consultation8420001188%50% of 8

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
DOE40%0%40%0%0%100%0%60%5
DHS0%0%0%0%0%100%0%0%1
DOI––0%0%0%0%0%0%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

8 records with at least one practice unanswered or in progressOpen in explorer
Use caseStageTestAIAReviewMonitorTrainFail-safeAppealConsult
FLIR 280 HD
DHS · DHS-2745
PilotReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressReported in placeNot applicableOther or ambiguous answer
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
Microsoft Copilot (Pilot)
DOE · DOE-603
PilotReported in progressReported in progressReported in placeReported in progressReported in progressReported in placeNot applicableReported in progress
CoPilot
DOE · DOE-734
PilotReported in progressReported in progressNo answer reportedReported in progressReported in progressNot applicableNot applicableNo answer reported
CHS Q Business AI Assistant (theKraken)
DOI · DOI-0169
PilotNo answer reportedNo answer reportedReported in progressReported in progressReported in progressNot applicableNot applicableReported in progress
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. 2 high-impact use cases mark an appeal process as not applicable. On what basis was each individual outcome judged not contestable?

These are questions the inventory raises but cannot answer. They are not findings of non-compliance.