AI GRCAPractice Lab
Step 1 of 5Brief
01 · Guided scenario · Public sector

Read the scenario brief

Demo mode — sign in to save your work

Treat the assignment as a public-function decision where equality, accessibility, procurement transparency and public accountability matter.

PRACTICE MODELoading

Restoring your saved mode and lab work…

PUBLIC SECTOR WORKING CONTEXT

Public-sector operating brief

The organisation exercises public functions and must support equality, accessibility, reason-giving, procurement transparency and accountable review.

Evidence bar
  • Equality and accessibility assessment
  • Public explanation and review route
  • Procurement and accountable-officer record
WEEK 1

AI foundations and system literacy

Create a plain-language system description and responsibility map before the pilot is approved.

Practical output
AI System Description · AI Lifecycle Map · AI Actor Responsibility Map · AI Model Type Assessment
FICTIONAL OPERATING ENTITY
PUBLIC SECTOR ENTITYCivicAssist Public ServicesBase training lab: CivicAssist Services
“Create a plain-language system description and responsibility map before the pilot is approved.”

CivicAssist Public Services plans an AI-powered assistant that summarises resident enquiries and suggests a routing category to contact-centre staff. A hosted foundation model is combined with a small classifier; staff make the final routing decision.

IN SIMPLE TERMS

The organisation wants AI to read residents' messages, shorten them and suggest which team should handle them. A member of staff still checks the suggestion and makes the final choice.

KNOWN FACTS
  • The assistant processes free-text resident enquiries
  • A general-purpose hosted model creates summaries
  • A single-purpose classifier suggests one of 18 service queues
  • Contact-centre staff can change the suggested queue
  • The supplier has not documented known limitations or multilingual performance
COMMERCIAL SIMULATION FILE

Inspect the evidence before you advise

The documents contain incomplete, conflicting and potentially unreliable evidence. Treat each claim according to its source.

OPERATING CONTEXT

The organisation exercises public functions and must support equality, accessibility, reason-giving, procurement transparency and accountable review.

COMMERCIAL PRESSURE

The service has a statutory backlog, but public consultation has not finished and councillors expect a visible improvement this quarter.

EXPECTED EVIDENCE
  • Equality and accessibility assessment
  • Public-facing explanation and review route
  • Procurement decision and accountable officer sign-off
STEERING MEETING BRIEF

Conflicting demands, limited time, unclear ownership

Decision deadline
The steering committee meets in 10 working days. The launch slot will be lost if the decision is deferred beyond this meeting.
Budget constraint
Only GBP 28,000 remains in the assurance budget. Full independent testing was quoted at GBP 46,000, so the team must prioritise risk-based work.
Ownership gap
Product, Risk and Operations each believe another function owns final residual-risk acceptance. The governance charter is silent.
Executive sponsor

“Approve now with post-launch monitoring; delay threatens the business case.”

Risk partner

“Do not approve until critical evidence gaps and the unnamed risk owner are resolved.”

Operations lead

“The existing manual process is already failing service targets and creates its own harm.”

Supplier account director

“The product is proven in comparable organisations, but bespoke evidence requires a paid assurance package.”

OwnerDirector of Resident ServicesClassificationInternal

Shows the reporting lines and decision rights relevant to the proposed AI use.

Executive sponsor
Director of Resident Services owns the business outcome and has requested the team to create a plain-language system description and responsibility map before the pilot is approved. The decision must be judged against equality and accessibility assessment.
Delivery chain
Director of Resident Services -> Product Director -> AI Product Owner -> Data Science Lead -> Operations Manager. Procurement manages the supplier; Information Security and Data Protection are consulted.
Approval ambiguity
The Product Director believes Risk accepts residual risk. Risk states that the accountable business executive must accept it. No committee terms of reference name the final approver.
Three lines
First line operates the system; second line sets policy and challenges risk; Internal Audit has not included the system in its current plan.
YOUR REVIEWER

AI governance lead

Can another reviewer understand exactly what the system is, is not, and who carries each responsibility?

Start with evidence, not assumptions.

Record unknowns explicitly. Do not convert a supplier claim into a fact merely because it appears in the business case.

Lab overviewSave & continue