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.

Governance report

Practice-by-practice evidence

Denominator: 13 records · use cases that answered at least one practice question

Reported in placeReported in progressNot applicablePrecluded by law or guidanceNo answer reported

Pre-deployment testing

Pre-deployment testing
No answer reported: 13 (100.0%)

AI impact assessment

AI impact assessment
Reported in progress: 1 (7.7%)AI impact assessment
No answer reported: 12 (92.3%)

Independent review

Independent review
Reported in place: 10 (76.9%)Independent review
Reported in progress: 1 (7.7%)Independent review
No answer reported: 2 (15.4%)

Ongoing monitoring

Ongoing monitoring
Reported in place: 10 (76.9%)Ongoing monitoring
Reported in progress: 1 (7.7%)Ongoing monitoring
No answer reported: 2 (15.4%)

Operator training

Operator training
Reported in place: 10 (76.9%)Operator training
Reported in progress: 1 (7.7%)Operator training
No answer reported: 2 (15.4%)

Fail-safe

Fail-safe
Reported in place: 1 (7.7%)Fail-safe
Not applicable: 11 (84.6%)Fail-safe
No answer reported: 1 (7.7%)

Appeal process

Appeal process
Reported in progress: 10 (76.9%)Appeal process
Not applicable: 1 (7.7%)Appeal process
Precluded by law or guidance: 1 (7.7%)Appeal process
No answer reported: 1 (7.7%)

User and public consultation

User and public consultation
Reported in place: 2 (15.4%)User and public consultation
Reported in progress: 1 (7.7%)User and public consultation
No answer reported: 10 (76.9%)

Practice	In scope	In place	In progress	N/A	Precluded or waived	No answer	Answered	In place of applicable
Pre-deployment testing	13	0	0	0	0	13	0%	0% of 13
AI impact assessment	13	0	1	0	0	12	8%	0% of 13
Independent review	13	10	1	0	0	2	85%	77% of 13
Ongoing monitoring	13	10	1	0	0	2	85%	77% of 13
Operator training	13	10	1	0	0	2	85%	77% of 13
Fail-safe	13	1	0	11	0	1	92%	50% of 2
Appeal process	13	0	10	1	1	1	92%	0% of 11
User and public consultation	13	2	1	0	0	10	23%	15% of 13

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 place Answered

Agency by governance practice
	Testing	Impact assess.	Indep. review	Monitoring	Training	Fail-safe	Appeal	Consultation	n
DOI	–	–	91%	91%	91%	0%	0%	0%	11
EAC	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	100%	1
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

13 records with at least one practice unanswered or in progressOpen in explorer

Use case	Stage	Test	AIA	Review	Monitor	Train	Fail-safe	Appeal	Consult
Rangeland Condition Monitoring Assessment and Projection (RCMAP) [2024 INV#WO0000000107126] DOI · DOI-0171	Deployed	No answer reported	No answer reported	Reported in progress	Reported in progress	Reported in progress	Not applicable	Not applicable	Reported in progress
use of random forest for species distribution modeling DOI · DOI-0161	Deployed	No answer reported	No answer reported	Reported in place	Reported in place	Reported in place	Not applicable	Reported in progress	No answer reported
Global food-and-water security-support analysis data (GFSAD) project [2024 INV#WO0000000107073] DOI · DOI-0095	Deployed	No answer reported	No answer reported	Reported in place	Reported in place	Reported in place	Not applicable	Reported in progress	No answer reported
Frog vocalization recognition from digital recordings DOI · DOI-0092	Deployed	No answer reported	No answer reported	Reported in place	Reported in place	Reported in place	Not applicable	Reported in progress	No answer reported
Patterns in the Landscape – Analyses of Cause and Effect DOI · DOI-0090	Deployed	No answer reported	No answer reported	Reported in place	Reported in place	Reported in place	Not applicable	Reported in progress	No answer reported
Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Vulnerability Evaluation Application (SAVVEA) DOI · DOI-0081	Deployed	No answer reported	No answer reported	Reported in place	Reported in place	Reported in place	Not applicable	Reported in progress	No answer reported
U.S. Wind Turbine Database DOI · DOI-0080	Deployed	No answer reported	No answer reported	Reported in place	Reported in place	Reported in place	Not applicable	Reported in progress	No answer reported
Machine learning in remote sensing-based wildfire and natural resource risk assessments DOI · DOI-0072	Deployed	No answer reported	No answer reported	Reported in place	Reported in place	Reported in place	Not applicable	Reported in progress	No answer reported
Telemetry Analysis Learning Algorithm (TALA) DOI · DOI-0070	Deployed	No answer reported	No answer reported	Reported in place	Reported in place	Reported in place	Not applicable	Reported in progress	No answer reported
LANDFIRE DOI · DOI-0069	Deployed	No answer reported	No answer reported	Reported in place	Reported in place	Reported in place	Not applicable	Reported in progress	No answer reported
DocketScope DOI · DOI-0040	Deployed	No answer reported	No answer reported	Reported in place	Reported in place	Reported in place	Not applicable	Reported in progress	No answer reported
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
Digital Identity Verification Services SSA · R3122	Deployed	No answer reported	Reported in progress	No answer reported	No answer reported	No answer reported	Reported in place	Precluded by law or guidance	Reported in place

Unanswered analytical questions

Generated from the data; for follow-up with agencies

VA designated 94 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?
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?
1 high-impact use cases report using PII but give no link to a Privacy Impact Assessment. Is a PIA published elsewhere?
1 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.