AI Control Library / CF-10: Recourse & Incident Response
Designation: Core | Control types represented: Operational
Control requirement
Identify and remediate harm caused or materially contributed to by AI, addressing affected people, records, transactions and continuing consequences. Verify the outcome of the remedy rather than treating technical restoration as sufficient.
Why this matters
Fixing a model does not correct an earlier denial, disclosure or erroneous record. Harm remediation requires a separate account of who was affected and what action can meaningfully address the consequence.
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 incidents and substantiated individual or group harms, including effects discovered through recourse, audits or monitoring.
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 accountable business owner coordinates domain, customer, privacy, legal and operational teams.
Implementation guidance
- Determine affected scope from credible evidence, documenting uncertainty and avoiding unsupported claims that every case is known.
- Select and authorize appropriate correction, reconsideration, communication or other remedy with qualified input.
- Implement actions across records, downstream systems and relevant suppliers, providing accessible affected-party support.
- Verify completion and residual consequences, reviewing whether related cases or continuing risks require further action.
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 technical fix | Separate affected-outcome remediation is considered. |
| Inspect a corrected case | Downstream consequences and required communication are addressed. |
| Review closure | Evidence supports the remedy delivered and any remaining limits. |
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
- Harm and affected-scope assessment
- Remedy decisions and authority
- Implementation and communications
- Verification and residual-impact records
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 ongoing harm, disputed remedies or incomplete scope to business and legal authorities. Apply appropriate interim protections and keep remediation open where material consequences remain untreated.
Example in practice
Hypothetical example: A model correction stops new false restrictions. The organization also identifies affected accounts, reconsiders decisions and verifies removal of downstream restrictions before reporting remediation complete.
Related controls
- CF10-009: AI Decision Recourse Mechanism
- CF02-008: Bias Remediation Process
- CF10-010: AI Post-Incident Review & Learning
Framework mappings
- NIST AI RMF (MANAGE 3.2)
- EU AI Act (Art. 26, Art. 72)
- ISO 42001 (Cl. 10.1)
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