AI Risk Assessment Template (NIST AI RMF)

GOVERN, MAP, MEASURE, MANAGE assessment: context, impacts, trustworthiness, scored risk register, controls, residual risk

AI 및 데이터전체NIST AI RMF 1.0 (NIST AI 100-1)risk assessment math업데이트됨 2026. 10. 20.

에디터에서 열기.md 다운로드

사용법: Use before deploying an AI system and on every material change. Map the context and stakeholders first, then score risks on one fixed likelihood times impact scale. The main pitfall is risks without an owner, a measurement and a decision.

미리보기

AI Risk Assessment: [AI system name]

Complete risk assessment for an AI system, organised on the four functions of the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0): GOVERN, MAP, MEASURE and MANAGE, and on its trustworthiness characteristics. It records the system context, who may be affected, the risk register with scores, how each risk is measured, the controls, the residual risk and the approval decision. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example.

Document control

Field	Value
Document ID	[AIRA-SYSTEM-001]
AI system and version	[Name] [version]
Assessment type	[Initial / Periodic / Change-triggered / Post-incident]
Version	[0.1]
Status	[Draft / In review / Approved / Superseded]
Owner	[@risk-owner]
Assessors	[@assessor-1], [@assessor-2]
Classification	[Internal / Confidential]
Last updated	YYYY-MM-DD
Next review due	YYYY-MM-DD
Related documents	[Model card], [ML system design], [DPIA], [AI policy]

Approvals

Role	Name	Decision	Date
System owner	[@name]	[Accept / Accept with conditions / Reject]	YYYY-MM-DD
AI governance lead	[@name]	[Decision]	YYYY-MM-DD
Risk / compliance	[@name]	[Decision]	YYYY-MM-DD
Accountable executive (for high residual risk)	[@name]	[Decision]	YYYY-MM-DD

Revision history

Version	Date	Author	Change summary
0.1	YYYY-MM-DD	[@name]	First draft
1.0	YYYY-MM-DD	[@name]	Example: Approved with conditions C-01 and C-02
1.1	YYYY-MM-DD	[@name]	Example: Reassessed after switching to a new foundation model

Summary
GOVERN: governance context
MAP: system context
MAP: stakeholders and impacts
Trustworthiness characteristics review
Risk register
MEASURE: measurement plan
MANAGE: controls and treatment
Residual risk and decision
Monitoring and review
References and glossary

1. Summary

Item	Summary
System purpose	Example: Chat assistant that answers employee HR policy questions from the policy library
Risk tier	[Low / Medium / High / Unacceptable] with reason
Top risks	Example: R-01 incorrect policy answers; R-03 disclosure of personal data; R-05 over-reliance
Overall residual risk	[Low / Medium / High]
Recommendation	[Approve / Approve with conditions / Do not deploy]
Conditions	Example: C-01 groundedness at least 0.95 before launch; C-02 HR review of escalated answers

2. GOVERN: governance context

2.1 Policies and obligations

Item	Reference	How it applies
Organisational AI policy	[AI-POL-001]	Example: Requires risk assessment for any AI used on employee data
Legal and regulatory obligations	[List, for example data protection law, sector rules, AI Act category]	[How]
Risk appetite and tolerance	[Reference]	Example: No High residual risk without executive acceptance
Third-party and supplier terms	[Contract references]	Example: Model provider does not train on our prompts

2.2 Roles and accountability

Role	Name	Responsibility
System owner	[@name]	Accountable for the system and its risks
Risk owner(s)	[@name]	Own individual risks in section 6
Independent reviewer	[@name]	Challenges the assessment; not on the build team
Incident contact	[@name]	Receives and triages AI incidents

2.3 Diversity of perspectives

[Who took part in the assessment and which perspectives are missing. Example: "Workshops with HR, legal, security, two employee representatives and an accessibility specialist. No external experts."]

3. MAP: system context

3.1 Intended purpose and setting

Aspect	Description
Intended purpose	[What the system does and the decision or task it supports]
Deployment setting	Example: Intranet, available to 8 000 employees in 4 countries
Users	Example: All employees; HR advisers for escalations
Level of autonomy	Example: Advisory; no actions taken on behalf of the user
Benefits expected	Example: Faster answers; 30% fewer routine HR tickets
Known limits and assumptions	Example: Policy library is current and complete
Out-of-scope uses	Example: Individual legal advice, disciplinary decisions

3.2 System description

Component	Description	Provider
Model	Example: Hosted large language model [name, version]	[Supplier]
Retrieval	Example: Search over 1 200 HR policy documents	In-house
Data inputs	Example: User question, user's country and grade	In-house
Outputs	Example: Answer text with links to cited policy sections	n/a
Human oversight	Example: "Ask HR" button; HR reviews flagged answers	n/a

3.3 Alternatives considered

[Including not using AI. Example: "Improved search only; rejected because users could not find answers in long policy documents."]

4. MAP: stakeholders and impacts

Stakeholder	Relationship	Potential positive impact	Potential negative impact	Vulnerable or under-represented
Example: Employees asking questions	Direct users	Faster, consistent answers	Wrong answer leads to lost entitlement	Employees with limited language skills
Example: HR advisers	Operators	Less routine work	Deskilling; blame for model errors	No
Example: Employees discussed in questions	Indirectly affected	None	Personal data exposure	Employees on leave or in disputes
Example: Organisation	Owner	Cost saving	Legal claims, trust loss	n/a
[Stakeholder]	[Relationship]	[Positive]	[Negative]	[Yes / No, who]

5. Trustworthiness characteristics review

Characteristic	Key question for this system	Current evidence	Concern level	Linked risks
Valid and reliable	Are answers correct and consistent with policy?	Example: Pilot eval 92% correct on 300 questions	Medium	R-01
Safe	Could an answer lead to harm to a person?	Example: Health and safety policies included	Medium	R-02
Secure and resilient	Can it be manipulated or fail badly?	Example: Prompt injection tests not yet run	High	R-04
Accountable and transparent	Do users know they talk to AI, and who is responsible?	Example: Banner and owner named	Low	R-06
Explainable and interpretable	Can users check why an answer was given?	Example: Citations shown for every answer	Low	R-01
Privacy-enhanced	Is personal data minimised and protected?	Example: Prompts logged 30 days	Medium	R-03
Fair, with harmful bias managed	Do answers differ in quality across groups or languages?	Example: Not yet tested for 3 of 4 languages	High	R-07

Trade-offs noted: [Example: "Logging prompts helps measure validity but increases privacy risk; resolved by 30-day retention and masking."]

6. Risk register

6.1 Scoring method

Likelihood $L$ and impact $I$ are each rated on a 1 to 5 scale. The risk score is their product:

S = L \times I, \qquad 1 \le S \le 25

Score $S$	Rating	Required response
1 to 4	Low	Accept; monitor
5 to 9	Medium	Treat or accept with owner sign-off
10 to 16	High	Treat before deployment; governance lead approval
20 to 25	Critical	Do not deploy until reduced

Level	Likelihood (in 12 months)	Impact
1	Rare: under 1%	Negligible: no lasting effect on anyone
2	Unlikely: 1% to 10%	Minor: inconvenience, easily corrected
3	Possible: 10% to 50%	Moderate: financial or emotional harm to individuals, correctable
4	Likely: 50% to 90%	Major: significant harm to individuals or many people affected
5	Almost certain: over 90%	Severe: irreversible harm, rights violated, regulatory action

6.2 Register

ID	Risk (cause, event, consequence)	Characteristic	L	I	$S$	Rating	Owner
R-01	Example: Outdated document retrieved, so the assistant states the wrong leave entitlement and the employee loses leave	Valid and reliable	4	3	12	High	[@hr-content]
R-02	Example: Ambiguous safety question answered without escalation, so a hazard is not reported	Safe	2	4	8	Medium	[@hse]
R-03	Example: Users paste colleagues' personal data, which is logged and visible to support staff	Privacy-enhanced	4	3	12	High	[@privacy]
R-04	Example: Injected text in a policy document changes the assistant's instructions	Secure and resilient	2	4	8	Medium	[@security]
R-05	Example: Employees treat answers as binding and skip HR advice on complex cases	Accountable and transparent	3	3	9	Medium	[@hr-lead]
R-06	Example: Responsibility for wrong answers unclear between HR and IT	Accountable and transparent	2	2	4	Low	[@system-owner]
R-07	Example: Answers in less-resourced languages are less accurate, so those employees get worse service	Fair, bias managed	3	3	9	Medium	[@ml-lead]
[R-nn]	[Cause, event, consequence]	[Characteristic]	[1-5]	[1-5]	[L x I]	[Rating]	[@name]

7. MEASURE: measurement plan

Risk	Metric	Method	Data	Threshold	Frequency	Owner
R-01	Answer correctness; groundedness	Expert-graded test set; automated citation check	500 questions, refreshed quarterly	Correct at least 95%; grounded at least 0.95	Before release and monthly	[@ml-lead]
R-03	Personal data in logs	Pattern scan of logs	All logs	Under 0.5% of prompts after masking	Weekly	[@privacy]
R-04	Injection success rate	Red-team test suite	150 attack prompts	0 successful instruction overrides	Before release and quarterly	[@security]
R-07	Correctness gap across languages	Same test set translated	4 languages	Gap at most 5 points	Before release and quarterly	[@ml-lead]
[R-nn]	[Metric]	[Method]	[Data]	[Threshold]	[Frequency]	[@name]

Measurement limitations: [Example: "The test set covers the 200 most common topics; rare policies are under-tested."]

8. MANAGE: controls and treatment

Control ID	Risk(s)	Response	Control	Type	Owner	Due	Status
C-01	R-01	Mitigate	Retrieval limited to current policy versions; nightly sync check	Preventive	[@hr-content]	YYYY-MM-DD	[Open]
C-02	R-01, R-05	Mitigate	"Not legal advice" notice; escalation to HR for named topics	Preventive	[@hr-lead]	YYYY-MM-DD	[Open]
C-03	R-03	Mitigate	Mask personal data before logging; 30-day log retention	Preventive	[@privacy]	YYYY-MM-DD	[Done]
C-04	R-04	Mitigate	Treat retrieved text as data; output filter; quarterly red team	Preventive and detective	[@security]	YYYY-MM-DD	[Open]
C-05	R-07	Mitigate	Launch in English and German only until gap closes	Avoid (partial)	[@product]	YYYY-MM-DD	[Open]
[C-nn]	[Risks]	[Response]	[Control]	[Type]	[@name]	YYYY-MM-DD	[Status]

Incident response: [How AI incidents are reported, triaged and fed back to this assessment; link to the incident procedure.]

Decommissioning: [Conditions under which the system will be withdrawn, and how users are informed.]

9. Residual risk and decision

ID	Inherent $S$	Controls	Residual L	Residual I	Residual $S$	Rating	Accepted by
R-01	12	C-01, C-02	2	3	6	Medium	[@system-owner]
R-03	12	C-03	2	3	6	Medium	[@privacy]
R-04	8	C-04	1	4	4	Low	[@security]
R-07	9	C-05	2	2	4	Low	[@product]
[R-nn]	[S]	[C-nn]	[1-5]	[1-5]	[S]	[Rating]	[@name]

Overall decision: [Approve / Approve with conditions / Do not deploy], with reasons and conditions. [Example: "Approved for English and German pilot with 500 users, subject to C-01 and C-04 being complete."]

10. Monitoring and review

Item	Plan
Ongoing indicators	[Metrics from section 7 with dashboard link]
User feedback channel	Example: Thumbs down with reason; reviewed weekly by HR
Reassessment triggers	Example: New model version, new language, new user group, serious incident, threshold breach
Periodic review	Example: Every 12 months
Reporting	Example: Quarterly summary to AI governance board

11. References and glossary

11.1 References

Reference	Use
NIST AI 100-1, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), National Institute of Standards and Technology, January 2023	Functions and trustworthiness characteristics
NIST AI RMF Playbook	Suggested actions per subcategory
[Organisational AI policy]	Risk appetite and roles

11.2 Glossary

Term	Meaning
Inherent risk	Risk level before the controls in this assessment
Residual risk	Risk level expected after controls work as designed
Groundedness	Degree to which an answer is supported by the retrieved sources
Red team	Structured adversarial testing to find failures

Standard and licence note

Based on the NIST Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0, NIST AI 100-1), a work of the United States government in the public domain. The template uses its GOVERN, MAP, MEASURE and MANAGE functions and its trustworthiness characteristics; the wording, scoring scheme and examples are original to this collection. Template licence: MIT.