AI Control Library / CF-10: Recourse & Incident Response
Designation: Supplemental | Control types represented: Operational
Control requirement
Operate an AI security incident service with defined intake, coverage, coordination, records and performance expectations. Ensure security response can engage AI specialists and appropriate business authority when needed.
Why this matters
A conventional service desk may route an AI report as a product defect while consequential misuse continues. Service management connects incoming cases to response capability and accountable handoffs.
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
Internal or outsourced security incident services supporting AI deployments and their shared platforms.
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 security incident service owner maintains coverage and service agreements with AI and business teams.
Implementation guidance
- Define service scope, intake channels, severity handling and expectations for acknowledgement and qualified response.
- Maintain trained coverage, specialist escalation and authority for customer-controlled containment.
- Track cases, evidence, handoffs and supplier dependencies, protecting sensitive incident information.
- Review exercises, missed commitments and recurring routing problems, verifying service improvements.
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 |
|---|---|
| Submit an AI security report | The service recognizes and routes it to qualified response. |
| Exercise absent specialist coverage | A workable alternate and containment route exists. |
| Review a handoff | Ownership and case continuity remain explicit. |
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
- Service scope and commitments
- Coverage and competency
- Case and handoff records
- Service reviews and improvements
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 failed critical coverage or unowned cases to the incident authority. Use alternate response and necessary containment while the service gap is corrected.
Example in practice
Hypothetical example: An outsourced service receives an agent misuse alert. Its agreement identifies the internal authority that can revoke tool access, allowing action without confusing monitoring responsibility with customer execution rights.
Related controls
- CF10-001: AI Incident Management Policy & Procedures
- CF10-005: AI Incident Triage Process
- CF07-004: AI Escalation Paths & Triggers
Framework mappings
- CSA AICM (SEF-02)
- NIST AI RMF (MANAGE 3.1)
- 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