https://taxonomy.eticas.ai/risk/human-oversight-control
Maturity: emerging
Lack of defined intervention points, override capabilities, or human review mechanisms, allowing issues and threats to persist unchecked.
This subcategory is emerging. It has not yet been validated through established assessment methods.
System type: ADM and LLM systems
Lifecycle stages: Post Processing
Status. Each mapping shows what it rests on. Reviewed means a reviewer has confirmed the mapping against the concept’s current definition and the framework edition the taxonomy currently references; when the only confirmation is that of the person who wrote the mapping, it reads Reviewed (author’s confirmation). Outdated means it was reviewed, but the concept’s definition has changed since, so the review has to be repeated. The other statuses mean that no review has been recorded yet. Inherited mappings have been in the taxonomy since before v5.7.0 and are unchanged. They carry no record of who made them or how, and some were checked by hand when the taxonomy first published its mappings. Agent-proposed mappings come from a review carried out by AI agents, which read the framework’s text and the concept’s definition and agreed on the relation; no person has confirmed them yet. Provisional mappings were made without access to the framework’s text. Unreviewed mappings are older mappings whose target or relation was revised in v5.7.0, and any other mapping without a review. Mappings to a superseded edition of a framework are not shown: where the provision continues, they are carried to the current edition. Mappings a review has changed or rejected are not shown.
| Framework | Reference | Status |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) | Article 26(2) — assignment of human oversight to persons with the necessary competence, training and authority | Agent-proposed |
| EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) | Article 14 — Human oversight | Agent-proposed |
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 — AI Management System | A.9.3 Objectives for responsible use of AI system | Agent-proposed |
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 — AI Management System | A.6.1.3 Processes for responsible AI system design and development | Agent-proposed |
| AIUC-1 — AI Underwriting Company Standard | Flag high-risk outputs for human review | Inherited |
| NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI 100-1) | GOVERN 3.2: Policies and procedures are in place to define and differentiate roles and responsibilities for human-AI configurations and oversight of AI systems. | Agent-proposed |
| NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI 100-1) | MAP 3.5: Processes for human oversight are defined, assessed, and documented in accordance with organizational policies from the GOVERN function. | Agent-proposed |
| NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI 100-1) | MANAGE 2.4: Mechanisms are in place and applied, and responsibilities are assigned and understood, to supersede, disengage, or deactivate AI systems that demonstrate performance or outcomes inconsistent with intended use. | Agent-proposed |
| OECD AI Principles | 1.4(b) Mechanisms to override, repair or decommission AI systems safely | Agent-proposed |
| Framework | Reference | Status |
|---|---|---|
| MIT AI Risk Repository | Loss of human agency and autonomy | Inherited |
Source: HRA project taxonomy