AI Control Library / CF-03: AI Supply Chain & Third-Party Risk
Designation: Core | Control types represented: Operational
Control requirement
Review whether material AI supply chain partners maintain decision authority, risk management, security ownership, change control and incident processes adequate for the dependency and evidence the organization relies on.
Why this matters
Individual technical assurances can conceal weak management of the decisions behind the service. A partner that cannot assign ownership or escalate an incident may fail when routine conditions change.
How the control types work together
Operational controls establish the supplier assessment, ownership, agreement and review processes described here. They work when the assigned parties perform the required activities and use evidence to guide decisions.
When it applies
Material model providers, platform partners, integration operators and other parties whose management practices affect safe and reliable AI use.
Tailor review depth to information sensitivity, granted authority and business dependence. Record what the organization can test directly, what relies on provider evidence and how material visibility gaps affect the acceptance decision.
Ownership
The supplier relationship owner coordinates review with AI risk, security and relevant business specialists.
Implementation guidance
- Identify governance practices that matter to the dependency, including accountable ownership, release authority, risk decisions and supplier oversight.
- Request proportionate evidence of how those practices operate, using records, interviews or scoped assurance rather than policy existence alone.
- Examine significant incidents, unresolved findings and material organizational changes for effects on the relied-on service.
- Record gaps and improvement commitments, establish internal compensating measures and review results at risk-based intervals.
How to verify it
Use representative deployment records and authorized controlled tests. Establish the assessed service, artifact version and acceptance conditions before interpreting results; do not extend evidence beyond the boundary it covers.
| Test | Expected result |
|---|---|
| Trace an important provider change or incident | The partner can identify the responsible decision and escalation roles. |
| Inspect a claimed governance practice | Relevant operational evidence supports it. |
| Review an unresolved partner finding | An owner, treatment and continued-use decision exist. |
Record a finding when a required result cannot be demonstrated or actual practice differs materially from the accepted conditions. Assign corrective action and verify the affected boundary before closing the issue.
Evidence to retain
- Partner governance review scope
- Ownership and process evidence
- Incident and finding analysis
- Improvement and continued-use decisions
Protect supplier-confidential information, credentials and personal data in these records. Preserve enough version and scope information to establish which service or artifact the evidence supports.
If the control fails
Escalate ineffective partner ownership or repeated nonperformance to relationship and business risk owners. Restrict the dependency or develop alternatives where internal measures cannot address the gap.
Example in practice
Hypothetical example: An integration partner maintains sound infrastructure but has no approver for agent permission changes. The review establishes a controlled release process before the partner can expand tool access.
Related controls
- CF03-004: SSRM Implementation & Review
- CF03-006: AI Supply Chain Risk Assessment
- CF03-008: AI Supply Chain Agreement Review
Framework mappings
- CSA AICM (STA-14)
- NIST AI RMF (MAP 1.6)
- EU AI Act (Art. 9(2)(b))
- ISO 42001 (Cl. 8.3, A9.1)
Review and maintenance
Review at the interval approved by the control owner and after relevant supplier, component, contract, access or deployment changes. Reassess material incidents and new evidence, updating acceptance conditions and verifying corrective actions where required.
Back to AI Supply Chain & Third-Party Risk
Version 1.0