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
Stage
High-impact1
Topic
AI type
Sourcing
Vendor
Function
Start year

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

testing: blankHigh-impact: High-impact

Practice-by-practice evidence

Denominator: 1 records · use cases that answered at least one practice question
Reported in placeReported in progressPrecluded by law or guidanceNo answer reported
PracticeIn scopeIn placeIn progressNot in placeN/APrecluded or waivedOtherNo answerAnsweredIn place of applicable
Pre-deployment testing100000010%0% of 1
AI impact assessment10100000100%0% of 1
Independent review100000010%0% of 1
Ongoing monitoring100000010%0% of 1
Operator training100000010%0% of 1
Fail-safe11000000100%100% of 1
Appeal process10000100100%n/a of 0
User and public consultation11000000100%100% of 1

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
SSA–0%–––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

1 records with at least one practice unanswered or in progressOpen in explorer
Use caseStageTestAIAReviewMonitorTrainFail-safeAppealConsult
Digital Identity Verification Services
SSA · R3122
DeployedNo answer reportedReported in progressNo answer reportedNo answer reportedNo answer reportedReported in placePrecluded by law or guidanceReported in place

Unanswered analytical questions

Generated from the data; for follow-up with agencies
  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. 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?
  4. 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?
  5. 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?
  6. 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?
  7. 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?
  8. 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?
  9. 7 high-impact use cases report using PII but give no link to a Privacy Impact Assessment. Is a PIA published elsewhere?

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