The canon · Governance · AIS-1.2

Identify the individual accountable for AI governance and describe their reporting line to senior management.

This is one of the twenty-five questions a carrier reviewer sends a vendor, in the words an examiner uses. Below it: the answers that make a reviewer stop on this item, derived by running Vaulith's rules engine on an estate that gets everything wrong, and the free questions that reach it.

What stops a reviewer here

One finding reaches this item.

Will be questionedR-GOVERNANCE-OWNER · blocks this item

No accountable role is named for AI governance

The NAIC bulletin has the carrier vest responsibility for its AI programme with senior management accountable to the board (Section 3 ¶1.3), and assess the third parties it relies on to a comparable standard, so its reviewer asks a vendor for the equivalent: one accountable role and its reporting line. "The engineering team" is not a name, and a reviewer who cannot write one down will ask for it, because their own examiner will ask them the same question about you.

To fix: Name the role that owns AI governance, for example "Head of Data Science, reporting to the Chief Operating Officer", and put it in the governance policy. The title matters less than the fact that it is one person and that they report upward.

How it is scored

Credit per verdict, times the weight.

A standard item carries weight 2. A pass earns 1.00 of it, a questioned answer 0.60, an escalated one 0.20 and a stop 0.00. An unanswered item earns nothing and still takes the citation penalty, so a profile cannot be improved by leaving an inconvenient question blank. The whole arithmetic is shown on the homepage and in every assessment.