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-impact
Topic
AI type
Sourcing
Vendor1
Function
Start year

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

Vendor: OpenAI

Practice-by-practice evidence

Denominator: 1 records · deployed high-impact use cases
Reported in placeNot applicable
PracticeIn scopeIn placeIn progressNot in placeN/APrecluded or waivedOtherNo answerAnsweredIn place of applicable
Pre-deployment testing11000000100%100% of 1
AI impact assessment11000000100%100% of 1
Independent review11000000100%100% of 1
Ongoing monitoring11000000100%100% of 1
Operator training11000000100%100% of 1
Fail-safe11000000100%100% of 1
Appeal process10001000100%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
SSA100%100%100%100%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

0 records with at least one practice unanswered or in progressOpen in explorer
Use caseStageTestAIAReviewMonitorTrainFail-safeAppealConsult

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?
  2. 5 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.