Skip to main content

AAT-36.12: Human-in-the-Loop & Escalation

AAT 5 — Medium Protect

Mechanisms exist to require human review and clear escalation paths for approval for high-risk or ambiguous Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) actions.

Renumbered: Formerly AAT-16.12 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization require human review and clear escalation paths for approval for high-risk or ambiguous Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) actions?

APAC (1)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2026 ISM-2113

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 — Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to require human review and clear escalation paths for approval for high-risk or ambiguous AAT actions.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 — Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Assessment Objectives

  1. AAT-36.12_A01 human review is performed for high-risk or ambiguous Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) actions.
  2. AAT-36.12_A02 clear escalation paths for approval exist for instances involving high-risk or ambiguous AAT actions.

Evidence Requirements

E-AAT-13 AI Human Oversight Records

Documented evidence of human oversight measures for deployed Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technologies (AAT), including oversight roles and escalation.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Autonomous Technologies Governance

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Require human approval for high-impact AI decisions

Small

  • Policy requiring human review for high-risk AI decisions
  • Escalation contacts

Medium

  • Formal human-in-the-loop policy
  • Defined escalation paths for ambiguous AI actions

Large

  • HITL workflow integration
  • Approval gates for high-risk AI decisions
  • Audit trails for approvals

Enterprise

  • Enterprise AI governance platform with HITL workflows
  • Automated escalation routing
  • Audit trails
  • Risk-based approval thresholds

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.