This page is still being polished. If you have thoughts, please share them via the feedback form.
Data on this page is preliminary and may change. Please do not share or cite these figures publicly.
Definition of roles, teams, and responsibility assignments for AI governance.
Also in Oversight & Accountability
Risk experts who advise and challenge senior management on their decisions
The second category consists of risk experts who advise and challenge senior management on their decisions. The senior managers making risk decisions need to be distinct from those advising on the decisions, to avoid conflicts of interest. Therefore, there should be a senior executive responsible for risk management processes (often called a Chief Risk Officer) who is accountable for the risk management processes, but is importantly not a risk owner making risk decisions themselves. Without them, senior management’s decisions are likely to be subject to short-term pressures such as deadlines or performance, at the expense of safety. To provide support to the Chief Risk Officer, it is common in many industries to have a central risk function. This function is in charge of the risk management process, providing support and advice, challenging management on the soundness of their decision-making, and tracking and monitoring risks. In most industries, this function is known as Enterprise Risk Management (ERM). This function also prepares appropriate risk information for senior management and the Board.
Reasoning
Establishes Chief Risk Officer and ERM function roles with distinct accountability from risk-decision makers.
Risk Analysis and Evaluation
Risk analysis and evaluation is a process that starts with the definition of a risk tolerance. This risk tolerance is then operationalized into risk indicators and their corresponding mitigations required to reduce risk below the risk tolerance.
2.2.1 Risk AssessmentRisk Analysis and Evaluation > Setting a Risk Tolerance
A risk tolerance represents the aggregate level of risk that society is willing to accept from AI systems.
3 EcosystemRisk Analysis and Evaluation > Operationalizing Risk Tolerance
Risk tolerance must be operationalized into measurable criteria to be practically useful in day-to-day operations. A risk tolerance can be translated into (1) Key Risk Indicator (KRI) thresholds, which are thresholds on measurable signals that serve as proxies for risks, and (2) Key Control Indicator (KCI) thresholds, which are thresholds on measurable signals that serve as proxies for the level of mitigation achieved.
2.2.1 Risk AssessmentRisk Treatment
Risk treatment corresponds to the process of determining, implementing, and evaluating appropriate risk-reducing countermeasures
2.2 Risk & AssuranceRisk Treatment > Implementing Mitigation Measures
AI developers should operationalize their KCI thresholds into mitigation measures.
2.3 Operations & SecurityRisk Treatment > Continuous Monitoring and Comparing Results with Pre-determined Thresholds
Developers must therefore implement continuous monitoring of both KRIs and KCIs to ensure that KCI thresholds are met once KRI thresholds are crossed according to the predefined "if-then" statements established in the risk analysis and evaluation phase.
2.3.3 Monitoring & LoggingA Frontier AI Risk Management Framework: Bridging the Gap Between Current AI Practices and Established Risk Management
Campos, Simeon; Papadatos, Henry; Roger, Fabien; Touzet, Chloé; Quarks, Otter; Murray, Malcolm (2025)
The recent development of powerful AI systems has highlighted the need for robust risk management frameworks in the AI industry. Although companies have begun to implement safety frameworks, current approaches often lack the systematic rigor found in other high-risk industries. This paper presents a comprehensive risk management framework for the development of frontier AI that bridges this gap by integrating established risk management principles with emerging AI-specific practices. The framework consists of four key components: (1) risk identification (through literature review, open-ended red-teaming, and risk modeling), (2) risk analysis and evaluation using quantitative metrics and clearly defined thresholds, (3) risk treatment through mitigation measures such as containment, deployment controls, and assurance processes, and (4) risk governance establishing clear organizational structures and accountability. Drawing from best practices in mature industries such as aviation or nuclear power, while accounting for AI's unique challenges, this framework provides AI developers with actionable guidelines for implementing robust risk management. The paper details how each component should be implemented throughout the life-cycle of the AI system - from planning through deployment - and emphasizes the importance and feasibility of conducting risk management work prior to the final training run to minimize the burden associated with it.
Other (outside lifecycle)
Outside the standard AI system lifecycle
Developer
Entity that creates, trains, or modifies the AI system
Govern
Policies, processes, and accountability structures for AI risk management
Primary
6.5 Governance failure