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

Read the scenario brief

Demo mode — sign in to save your work

Treat the assignment as a learner-support or assessment-adjacent decision where age, accessibility, fairness and educator judgement matter.

PRACTICE MODELoading

Restoring your saved mode and lab work…

EDUCATION WORKING CONTEXT

Education operating brief

The system supports learner engagement, assessment or safeguarding. Age, accessibility, educational fairness and appropriate staff judgement matter.

Evidence bar
  • Learner-group performance testing
  • Accessible notice and challenge route
  • Prohibited-use and educator oversight rules
WEEK 2

Responsible AI principles review

Assess possible harms and decide when the proposed intervention should be paused or blocked.

Practical output
Stakeholder Map · AI Harm Assessment · Probability/Severity Harms Matrix · OECD AI Principles Mapping
FICTIONAL OPERATING ENTITY
EDUCATION ENTITYBrightPath LearningBase training lab: BrightPath Learning
“Assess possible harms and decide when the proposed intervention should be paused or blocked.”

BrightPath Learning plans an AI assistant that combines attendance, platform activity, assessment history and message sentiment to suggest which adult learners may need additional support. Tutors review the risk band and decide whether to contact a learner.

IN SIMPLE TERMS

The education provider wants AI to spot learners who may be struggling so tutors can offer help. Tutors decide what to do, but the score could misunderstand a learner or treat some groups unfairly.

KNOWN FACTS
  • The assistant uses attendance, activity, assessment and message data
  • A sentiment model contributes to a learner risk band
  • The score does not directly determine grades or disciplinary action
  • Tutors decide whether and how to contact a learner
  • The reported 84% accuracy has no learner-group breakdown
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 system supports learner engagement, assessment or safeguarding. Age, accessibility, educational fairness and appropriate staff judgement matter.

COMMERCIAL PRESSURE

The academic year starts in four weeks and funding for the pilot expires if implementation slips into the next term.

EXPECTED EVIDENCE
  • Learner-group performance testing
  • Accessible notice and challenge route
  • Clear prohibited-use and educator oversight rules
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 Learner ServicesClassificationInternal

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

Executive sponsor
Director of Learner Services owns the business outcome and has requested the team to assess possible harms and decide when the proposed intervention should be paused or blocked. The decision must be judged against learner-group performance testing.
Delivery chain
Director of Learner 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

Responsible AI committee

Does the assessment identify who may be harmed and set a credible launch-blocking threshold?

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