From Model Risk Management to AI Assurance: Integrating AI Risk Management, Independent Validation, and AI Auditing for Generative and Agentic AI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/tecs.1405.12205Keywords:
AI assurance, agentic AI, generative AI, independent validation, model risk management, trustworthy AIAbstract
Generative and agentic artificial intelligence challenge assumptions embedded in traditional model risk management (MRM), including stable system boundaries, direct observability, controllable change, and access to model-development evidence. Yet the enduring purposes of MRM—inventory, materiality assessment, independent validation, monitoring, documentation, effective challenge, and accountable governance—remain necessary. This conceptual and applied article develops a socio-technical assurance architecture for contemporary AI systems by integrating governmental and regulatory guidance, international standards, professional assurance practices, and scholarly literature. The proposed Integrated AI Assurance Framework connects four distinct but interdependent functions: AI governance; AI risk management and MRM; independent AI/model validation; and AI auditing. The article also introduces the AI Assurance Boundary, which defines the technical and organizational components whose evidence is material to justified reliance on an AI-enabled capability, and the Assurance Sufficiency Principle, which addresses circumstances in which complete transparency, traceability, or explainability is unattainable. The resulting architecture is risk-based, with assurance intensity varying according to materiality, consequentiality, autonomy, data sensitivity, regulatory exposure, observability, topology, and third-party dependence. Lending, employment, and agentic-enterprise illustrations demonstrate how the framework supports accountable ownership, effective challenge, evidence, escalation, and independent assurance.
References
C. Autio et al., Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile, NIST AI 600-1. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2024, doi: 10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1.
R. Bommasani et al., On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models. Stanford, CA, USA: Stanford Center for Research on Foundation Models, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://crfm.stanford.edu/report.html
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Revised Guidance on Model Risk Management, SR 26-2, Apr. 17, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/SR2602.htm
A. Bhattacharyya, Y. Yu, H. Yang, R. Singh, T. Joshi, J. Chen, and K. Yalavarthy, “Model risk management for generative AI in financial institutions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15668, 2025, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15668.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Interagency Guidance on Third-Party Relationships: Risk Management, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/sr2304.htm
E. Tabassi, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), NIST AI 100-1. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2023, doi: 10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1.
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Artificial Intelligence: An Accountability Framework for Federal Agencies and Other Entities, GAO-21-519SP, Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-519sp
The Institute of Internal Auditors, The IIA's Three Lines Model: An Update of the Three Lines of Defense. Lake Mary, FL, USA, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.theiia.org/en/content/position-papers/2020/the-iias-three-lines-model-anupdate-of-the-three-lines-of-defense/
D. S. Schiff, S. Kelley, and J. Camacho Ibanez, “The emergence of artificial intelligence ethics auditing,” Big Data & Society, 2024, doi: 10.1177/20539517241299732.
I. D. Raji et al., “Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing,” in Proc. 2020 Conf. Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2020, pp. 33–44, doi: 10.1145/3351095.3372873.
ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Information Technology—Artificial Intelligence—Management System, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/42001.html
ISO/IEC 23894:2023, Information Technology—Artificial Intelligence—Guidance on Risk Management, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html
The Institute of Internal Auditors, The IIA's Artificial Intelligence Auditing Framework. Lake Mary, FL, USA, 2024. [Online]. Available: Scholar Publishing https://www.theiia.org/en/content/tools/professional/2023/the-iias-updated-ai-auditingframework/
The Institute of Internal Auditors, Global Internal Audit Standards, 2024 ed. Lake Mary, FL, USA, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.theiia.org/en/standards/2024-standards/globalinternal-audit-standards/
E. Debenedetti et al., “AgentDojo: A dynamic environment to evaluate prompt injection attacks and defenses for LLM agents,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13352
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Artificial intelligence and algorithmic fairness,” and Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. pt. 1607. [Online]. Available: https://www.eeoc.gov/ai. [Accessed: Sep. 1, 2026].
Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.; Regulation B, 12 C.F.R. pt. 1002; Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Circular 2022-03, Adverse Action Notification Requirements in Connection with Credit Decisions Based on Complex Algorithms, May 26, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_2022-03_circular_2022-05.pdf
European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Artificial Intelligence Act, Off. J. Eur. Union, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng
New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, Automated Employment Decision Tools, Local Law 144 Implementation Guidance, New York, NY, USA. [Online]. Available: https://home4.nyc.gov/site/dca/about/automated-employment-decisiontools.page
C. Pascoe, S. Quinn, and K. Scarfone, The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0, NIST CSWP 29. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2024, doi: 10.6028/NIST.CSWP.29.
M. Mitchell et al., “Model cards for model reporting,” in Proc. Conf. Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2019, pp. 220–229, doi: 10.1145/3287560.3287596.
T. Gebru et al., “Datasheets for datasets,” Commun. ACM, vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 86–92, 2021, doi: 10.1145/3458723.
J. Buolamwini and T. Gebru, “Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification,” Proc. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 81, pp. 77–91, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html
L. Huang et al., “A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions,” ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., vol. 43, no. 2, Art. no. 42, 2025, doi: 10.1145/3703155.
A. Vassilev et al., Adversarial Machine Learning: A Taxonomy and Terminology of Attacks and Mitigations, NIST AI 100-2e2025. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2025, doi: 10.6028/NIST.AI.100-2e2025.
J. Su, J. P. Zhou, Z. Zhang, P. Nakov, and C. Cardie, “Towards more robust retrievalaugmented generation: Evaluating RAG under adversarial poisoning attacks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16708, 2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.16708.
R. Parasuraman and D. H. Manzey, “Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration,” Human Factors, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 381–410, 2010, doi: 10.1177/0018720810376055. Scholar Publishing
K. Goddard, A. Roudsari, and J. C. Wyatt, “Automation bias: A systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators,” J. Amer. Med. Inform. Assoc., 2012, doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089.
G. Romeo and D. Conti, “Exploring automation bias in human-AI collaboration: A review and implications for explainable AI,” AI & Society, 2026, doi: 10.1007/s00146-025-02422-7.
P. Hall et al., “A United States fair lending perspective on machine learning,” Front. Artif. Intell., vol. 4, Art. no. 695301, 2021, doi: 10.3389/frai.2021.695301.
M. Raghavan, S. Barocas, J. Kleinberg, and K. Levy, “Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices,” in Proc. 2020 Conf. Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2020, pp. 469–481, doi: 10.1145/3351095.3372828.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Tim Godlove, John Buchanan

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.