Skip to main content

IRO-23: Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Autonomous Technologies (AAT) Incidents

IRO 10 — Critical Respond

Mechanisms exist to handle failures and/or incidents with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) deemed to be high-risk.

Renumbered: Formerly BCD-16 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization handle failures or incidents with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) deemed to be high-risk?

General (2)
Framework Mapping Values
NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 GOVERN 6.2
Shared Assessments SIG 2025 R.8

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

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power).

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

Level 3 — Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery. ▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software). ▪ 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 IRO 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 handle failures or incidents with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) deemed to be high-risk.

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. IRO-23_A01 an incident handling capability for incidents involving Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) exists.
  2. IRO-23_A02 processes are in place to handle failures or incidents involving Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) deemed to be high-risk.

Evidence Requirements

E-AAT-14 AI Production Monitoring & Serious Incident Reporting

Documented evidence of production monitoring of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technologies (AAT), including event logging and serious incident reporting / root cause analysis.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Autonomous Technologies Governance
E-IRO-01 Incident Response Plan (IRP)

Documented evidence of a Incident Response Plan (IRP). This is program-level documentation in the form of a runbook, playbook or a similar format provides guidance on organizational practices that support existing policies and standards.

Incident Response

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Incident Response Plan (IRP)
  • Legal review
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program

Small

  • Incident Response Plan (IRP)
  • Legal review
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program

Medium

  • Incident Response Plan (IRP)
  • Legal review
  • Steering committee
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program

Large

  • Incident Response Plan (IRP)
  • Legal review
  • Steering committee
  • Board of Directors (BoD)
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program

Enterprise

  • Incident Response Plan (IRP)
  • Legal review
  • Steering committee
  • Board of Directors (BoD)
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program

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.