AI Control Library / CF-10: Recourse & Incident Response
Designation: Core | Control types represented: Operational
Control requirement
Maintain verified regulatory, authority and other required incident-reporting contacts with applicable channels, roles, coverage and access controls. Test internal readiness without sending unauthorized external notices.
Why this matters
A stale contact or inaccessible portal can delay a valid notification. Contact management should connect the right authority to the relevant use and provide a workable authorized submission route.
How the control types work together
Operational controls establish the assigned responsibilities, review processes and response decisions described here. Their effectiveness depends on performing the work and using evidence to guide action, rather than approving a document alone.
When it applies
AI incident and breach reporting, authority coordination and other reviewed external response relationships.
Define the assessed boundary, dependencies and evidence limitations. Tailor depth and review frequency to potential impact, and document why a particular safeguard or exclusion is appropriate to the actual deployment.
Ownership
The compliance or legal contact owner maintains the register with privacy and incident response functions.
Implementation guidance
- Identify relevant authorities and channels from qualified applicability review, recording role and jurisdiction context.
- Verify contact information through authoritative sources and establish authorized submitters and necessary portal access.
- Provide controlled availability and deputies for urgent response, protecting credentials separately.
- Review after organizational or external changes and exercise internal routing and submission readiness without unnecessary external contact.
How to verify it
Use representative records and authorized controlled tests. Identify the relevant version, operating conditions and expected result before testing, and retain enough evidence to support the conclusion.
| Test | Expected result |
|---|---|
| Trace a reporting scenario | The responsible team can identify the correct authority and channel. |
| Review submitter availability | Authorized coverage and required access exist. |
| Inspect a changed contact | The register and response instructions are updated. |
Record a finding when required results cannot be demonstrated or practice differs materially from the approved conditions. Missing evidence limits the conclusion; it should not be treated as a successful test.
Evidence to retain
- Authority and channel register
- Verification sources
- Submitter and coverage records
- Readiness and maintenance checks
Protect evidence according to its sensitivity, access needs and retention rules. Avoid unnecessary copies of personal information, secrets or confidential material, while preserving the records needed for authorized review.
If the control fails
Escalate inaccessible or uncertain reporting channels to legal and response authorities. Use an officially supported alternative where applicable and document the decision.
Example in practice
Hypothetical example: A reporting portal requires a named authorized account. The organization arranges deputy access before an incident rather than discovering the primary submitter is unavailable at a critical moment.
Related controls
- CF10-006: AI Incident & Breach Notification
- CF10-003: AI Incident Response Plans
- CF05-S18: AI Personal Data Law Enforcement Disclosure
Framework mappings
- CSA AICM (SEF-08)
- NIST AI RMF (MANAGE 3.1)
- EU AI Act (Art. 72)
- ISO 42001 (Cl. 10.2)
Review and maintenance
Review at the interval approved by the control owner and after relevant changes, incidents or failed assessments. Update affected procedures and configuration, address evidence gaps and verify corrective action before closing findings.
Back to Recourse & Incident Response
Version 1.0