AI GRCAPractice Lab
Step 5 of 5Evidence
05 · Practitioner output · Public sector

Make the pilot recommendation

Demo mode — sign in to save your work

Your conclusion should show whether public duties, procurement evidence and affected-person safeguards justify the decision.

PRACTICE MODELoading

Restoring your saved mode and lab work…

PUBLIC SECTOR WORKING CONTEXT

Write the public accountability record

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

Evidence bar
  • Accountable-officer sign-off
  • Decision publication pack
  • Monitoring plan
REVIEW CHECKPOINTS

Model Type Assessment

Model Type Assessment

Complete the fields against the public sector operating context. Your work saves automatically in this browser.

Write at least 20 characters of your own answer to unlock the review guide.

Write at least 20 characters of your own answer to unlock the review guide.

Write at least 20 characters of your own answer to unlock the review guide.

Write at least 20 characters of your own answer to unlock the review guide.

Loading saved answers…

ASSURANCE WORKPAPER

Test whether the controls actually operate

Move beyond policy design: define a population, select a defensible sample, test evidence, document exceptions and write the conclusion an audit committee would need.

01Define

Objective, population and period.

02Sample

Risk-based and representative items.

03Test

Inspect, observe and reperform.

04Conclude

Rate findings and communicate.

STRUCTURED ARTEFACT

Risk → control → evidence traceability

Build an auditable decision trail. A risk without a control—or a control without evidence—remains visible as a gap.

No traceability rows yet. Add the first priority risk and connect it to a control, test and evidence.

SCENARIO INJECT

The situation has changed

Choose an event and update the governance response as if the system were already operating.

NEW EVENT

Unannounced model change

The supplier upgrades the underlying model and cannot confirm whether prior validation remains representative.

The business wants to keep the original approval because users have not complained.

Write at least 40 characters to unlock the response criteria.

PRACTITIONER MATURITYLevel 1 · Initial

Work has started, but material evidence and ownership are missing.

Why this level?
  • Workflow is 0% complete.
  • Worksheet answer coverage is 0%.
  • No complete risk-control-evidence row is ready for review.
  • Rubric ratings are not yet consistently strong or competent.
READINESS GATENot ready
Workflow
0%
Answers
0%
Traceability
0 rows
Why this gate?
  • Workflow completion is 0%.
  • Answer coverage is 0%.
  • Add at least one traceability row marked ready for review.
TRAINER FEEDBACK

What to strengthen next

  • Name the affected people and explain the pathway from system behaviour to impact.
  • Assign an accountable human role; responsibility cannot sit with the AI system.
  • Define the evidence and acceptance criteria needed to support the conclusion.
  • Add post-deployment monitoring, escalation thresholds and a reassessment trigger.
SELF-ASSESS BEFORE EXPORT

Practitioner quality rubric

Rate the work honestly. “Needs revision” is a useful result when it identifies what to strengthen before review.

Context and scope

Strong: States the system, decision, actors, people affected, boundaries and material assumptions.

Improve: Avoid generic statements or conclusions that depend on unstated facts.

Risk reasoning

Strong: Links a credible cause and event to a specific impact, then assesses likelihood, severity and uncertainty.

Improve: Do not list harms without explaining how they could arise in this scenario.

Proportionate controls

Strong: Selects preventive, detective and corrective controls that address the identified risks and assigns owners.

Improve: Avoid control lists with no connection to a risk, trigger or responsible role.

Evidence and decision

Strong: Defines testable evidence, acceptance criteria, residual risk and a clear, conditional recommendation.

Improve: A confident conclusion is not defensible when evidence, thresholds or escalation routes are missing.

EVIDENCE-QUALITY GATES
Practitioner evidence pack

FoundationsAI

CivicAssist Public Services · Public sector overlay · AI foundations and system literacy

Prepared by
Learner name not added
Course coverage
Week 1
Training simulation only · Fictional scenario and data

Executive assignment

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.

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

Sector overlay: Public sector

Decision pressure: The steering committee meets in 10 working days. The launch slot will be lost if the decision is deferred beyond this meeting.

Ownership gap: Product, Risk and Operations each believe another function owns final residual-risk acceptance. The governance charter is silent.

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

AI System Description

Intended purpose
Not completed
System boundary
Not completed
Primary model pattern
Not completed
Deployment and ownership
Not completed
Known and suspected limitations
Not completed

Lifecycle & Actor Map

AI lifecycle map
Not completed
Actor responsibility map
Not completed
Training versus inference
Not completed
Responsibility gaps
Not completed

Foundation Risk Record

Priority risks
Not completed
Minimum controls
Not completed
Evidence required
Not completed
Accountable owner
Not completed

Model Type Assessment

Recommendation
Not completed
Reasoning
Not completed
Conditions and prohibited uses
Not completed
Review and monitoring plan
Not completed

Assurance testing workpaper

Assurance objective
Not completed
Population and period
Not completed
Sampling approach
Not completed
Test procedure
Not completed
Exceptions and root cause
Not completed
Finding and severity
Not completed
Management action
Not completed
Board / audit summary
Not completed

Quality review and sign-off

Reviewer: AI governance lead

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

Context and scope
Not rated
Risk reasoning
Not rated
Proportionate controls
Not rated
Evidence and decision
Not rated

Reviewer sign-off: ____________________   Date: __________   Version: 1.0

Prepared as a learning artefact. Validate legal and regulatory conclusions against current authoritative sources before real-world use.
TRAINER REVIEW

Sign in to submit this evidence

Demo work stays in this browser. A registered account can submit a fixed version to a cohort trainer.

Sign in or create account
Back Finish lab