AICM AtlasCSA AI Controls Matrix
GRC · Governance, Risk and Compliance
GRC-03Cloud & AI Related

Organizational Policy Reviews

Specification

Review all relevant organizational policies and associated procedures at least annually or when a substantial change occurs within the organization.

Threat coverage

Model manipulation
Data poisoning
Sensitive data disclosure
Model theft
Model/Service Failure
Insecure supply chain
Insecure apps/plugins
Denial of Service
Loss of governance

Architectural relevance

Physical infrastructure
Network
Compute
Storage
Application
Data

Lifecycle

Preparation

Team and expertise

Development

Guardrails

Evaluation

Evaluation

Deployment

Orchestration, AI Services supply chain

Delivery

Operations, Maintenance, Continuous monitoring, Continuous improvement

Retirement

Archiving, Data deletion

Ownership / SSRM

PI

Shared Cloud Service Provider-Model Provider (Shared CSP-MP)

The CSP and MP are jointly responsible and accountable for the design, development, implementation, and enforcement of the control to mitigate security, privacy, or compliance risks associated with Large Language Model (LLM)/GenAI technologies in the context of the services or products they develop and offer.

Model

Owned by the Model Provider (MP)

The model provider (MP) designs, develops, and implements the control as part of their services or products to mitigate security, privacy, or compliance risks associated with the Large Language Model (LLM). Model Providers are entities that develop, train, and distribute foundational and fine-tuned AI models for various applications. They create the underlying AI capabilities that other actors build upon. Model Providers are responsible for model architecture, training methodologies, performance characteristics, and documentation of capabilities and limitations. They operate at the foundation layer of the AI stack and may provide direct API access to their models. Examples: OpenAI (GPT, DALL-E, Whisper), Anthropic(Claude), Google(Gemini), Meta(Llama), as well as any customized model.

Orchestrated

Owned by the Orchestrated Service Provider (OSP)

The Orchestrated Service Provider (OSP) is responsible for the design, development, implementation, and enforcement of the control to mitigate security, privacy, or compliance risks associated with Large Language Model (LLM)/GenAI technologies in the context of the services or products they develop and offer. The OSP is responsible and accountable for the implementation of the control within its own infrastructure/environment. If the control has downstream implications on the users/customers, the OSP is responsible for enabling the customer and/or upstream partner in the implementation/configuration of the control within their risk management approach. The OSP is accountable for ensuring that its providers upstream (e.g MPs) implement the control as it relates to the service/product the develop and offered by the OSP. This refers to entities that create the technical building blocks and management tools that enable AI implementation. This can include platforms, frameworks, and tools that facilitate the integration, deployment, and management of AI models within enterprise workflows. These providers focus on model orchestration and offer services like API access, automated scaling, prompt management, workflow automation, monitoring, and governance rather than end-user functionality or raw infrastructure. They help businesses implement AI in a structured and efficient manner. Examples: AWS, Azure, GCP, OpenAI, Anthropic, LangChain (for AI workflow orchestration), Anyscale (Ray for distributed AI workloads), Databricks (MLflow), IBM Watson Orchestrate, and developer platforms like Google AI Studio.

Application

Owned by the Customer (AIC)

The Customer (AIC) is responsible and accountable for the design, development, implementation, and enforcement of the control to mitigate security, privacy, or compliance risks associated with Large Language Model (LLM)/GenAI technologies services or products they consume.

Implementation guidelines

[All Actors]
1. Review AI- and cloud-related policy, procedure and governance document at least annually or immediately after a material change (new model, regulation, technology, acquisition).

2. Align policies with current industry standards, ethical-AI guidelines and applicable regulations (data quality, transparency, bias mitigation, security).

3. Run a documented change-management process for policy updates, including stakeholder notification, approval and version control.

4. Maintain a central repository or dashboard that tracks policy status, next-review dates and outstanding actions; grant stakeholders read access.

5. Trigger interim reviews from continuous-monitoring signals (for example, model-drift alerts, incident post-mortems, new threat intel) so that policies evolve with operational risk.

6. Provide periodic training or awareness sessions so staff understand updated responsibilities for responsible-AI, privacy and security.

Auditing guidelines

1. Policy Examination
a. Verify that the organization maintains a documented inventory of internal policies and associated procedures relevant to the operation, security, and governance of AI-enabled cloud services and infrastructure.
b. Confirm that the organization has defined which policies are considered "relevant" for AI infrastructure, model hosting, training pipelines, customer-facing AI services, and shared responsibility environments.

2. Policy Assessment
a. Verify that policies and procedures are reviewed at least annually, with documented version control, timestamps, and evidence of formal review and approval.
b. Confirm that designated policy owners (e.g., platform governance leads, compliance officers) are accountable for conducting reviews and that governance bodies (e.g., risk committees or AI oversight boards) are involved in approvals where applicable.

3. Review Process Evaluation
a. Determine whether the organization has established criteria for identifying substantial changes (e.g., platform upgrades, introduction of new AI services, or revised SLAs that affect customers) that may require out-of-cycle policy reviews.
b. Verify that the organization has a documented process to initiate policy reviews in response to such changes, and that it includes notification and escalation procedures where customer-facing impacts are expected.

4. Implementation Validation
a. Inspect records of the organization's policy reviews to confirm that the annual review cycle is in place and that policies tied to AI operations (e.g., tenant isolation data handling, model serving) reflect current practices.
b. Examine a sample of recent substantial changes (e.g., changes to model deployment processes, updates to infrastructure automation) and validate that associated policies and procedures were reviewed and updated as a result.

From CCM:
1. Examine the policy and/or procedures related to the Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) program to determine if the organization reviews these documents at least annually or when a substantial change occurs within the organization.
2. Confirm that Policy reviews have taken place in compliance with the organization's review requirements and that any exceptions identified are investigated and remediated.

Standards mappings

ISO 42001No Gap
42001: A.2.4 (Review of the AI policy)
42001: B.2.4  (Review of the AI policy)
42001: 7.5.2 (Creating and updating documented information)
Addendum

N/A

EU AI ActNo Gap
Article 17
Article 53
Addendum

N/A

NIST AI 600-1No Gap
GV-4.1-002
MG-2.3-001
Addendum

N/A

BSI AIC4No Gap
SP-02
Addendum

N/A

AI-CAIQ questions (1)

GRC-03.1

Are relevant organizational policies and associated procedures reviewed at least annually or when a substantial change within the organization, occurs?