Answers for procurement and audit, without reading every standards document first.
Checked on October 6, 2026 against the Ethotechnics clause register, the EU AI Act as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, and NIST AI 100-1.
“Partial: listed clauses only” means Ethotechnics clauses bear on part of each framework clause listed, and the rest stays with you. “Supporting evidence only” means Ethotechnics records can serve as evidence inside controls your organization owns.
No entry is a determination of legal compliance. Each links to control briefs that name the Ethotechnics clauses a contract can cite and the records to request.
For each framework: the Ethotechnics controls it maps to, what they cover, how much is left to you, and the checks and evidence requests to put in a procurement packet or an audit walkthrough.
Read the status. For the EU AI Act, read the article table too: it says what each clause leaves to you.
Name the person accountable for the first step.
Request evidence artifacts before contract sign-off or audit close.
EU AI Act (high-risk context)
Partial: listed clauses only
Framework reference: Articles 9, 12, 14, and 72 in part; not Article 73
Mapped Ethotechnics controls:
CTRL-01
— Maintain human oversight with exercisable halt authority for high-risk decisions.
;
CTRL-02
— Demonstrate risk management and controls before deployment and at major changes.
;
CTRL-03
— Operate post-market monitoring and incident reporting with response clocks.
;
CTRL-04
— Provide traceability so affected decisions can be reconstructed and challenged.
Parts of risk management, record-keeping, human oversight, and post-market monitoring. No clause covers serious-incident reporting under Article 73.
First step: Read the article table below and assign an owner to each gap, starting with Article 73 incident reporting.
What to check and the evidence to request
What a buyer or auditor should check:
Named owner for incident-reporting clocks and regulator submissions.
Decision-level records retained with version context.
Documented halt authority and oversight rota for high-risk actions.
Evidence to request first:
Intervention specification per oversight claim, naming states alterable and what happens on disagreement
Mapped Ethotechnics controls:
CTRL-02
— Demonstrate risk management and controls before deployment and at major changes.
;
CTRL-03
— Operate post-market monitoring and incident reporting with response clocks.
Lifecycle controls for an AI management system (AIMS): planning, operation, monitoring, and continual improvement.
First step: Cross-check your AIMS internal-audit scope against evidence-pack artifacts and owners.
What to check and the evidence to request
What a buyer or auditor should check:
Policy record references operational controls and review cadence.
Internal audits sample real evidence artifacts, not only policy PDFs.
Corrective actions are linked to incident and remediation logs.
For each article the map cites: the Ethotechnics clauses that bear on it, what they require that the article also asks for, and what they leave to you.
Tests run before launch against thresholds declared before each test, which Article 9(8) also asks for. A register of do-not-deploy boundaries, where an active breach stops the launch. Policy review triggers that send dependent grants back to review.
How risks are identified, estimated, and evaluated (9(2)). The judgment that residual risk is acceptable (9(5)). The attention to minors and other vulnerable groups (9(9)).
Records that are never edited and carry a hash of their content, with the moment a record describes kept apart from the moment it was written. A decision log that links each challenged decision to its evidence, reviewers, and outcome, kept tamper-evident through the appeal period and the limitation window.
The logging capability built into the system (12(1)). The minimum log contents for remote biometric identification under Annex III, point 1(a) (12(3)).
Each claim that a person oversees a decision, resolved to what that person sees, can prevent, and can alter. An approval that can alter nothing is recorded as advisory review, not as a control. Near-unanimous or too-fast approvals reopen the specification, which bears on the automation bias of 14(4)(b). One owner who can halt the deployment, and time to halt measured against a clock.
Tools that let the overseer understand and interpret the output (14(4)(a) and (c)). Verification by two people for remote biometric identification (14(5)).
Error, reversal, and remedy rates for each affected population on a declared cadence, from the operator's own records. Evidence carries the date it was refreshed and is reported as stale when it is. Appeal and reversal rates are published. Evidence held anywhere in the institution counts as a fired review trigger.
The post-market monitoring plan and its place in the technical documentation (72(3)).
Article 73
Reporting of serious incidents
None
Nothing. No clause names who reports a serious incident to a market surveillance authority, or by when.
All of it: the duty to report and its deadlines.
Articles 9, 12, and 14 sit in Chapter III, Section 2, which applies to
Annex III systems from December 2, 2027 and to Annex I systems from August
2, 2028. The EU AI Act page lists every application date and its source.
Monitoring after release needs a route, a clock, and an export to the regulator. Without them it ends up buried in retrospectives.
Intake: Record the incident class, severity, affected parties, and owner when the incident is opened.
Triage: Apply halt or degrade decisions and publish expected next update time.
Remediation: Link fix actions to evidence artifacts and restoration targets.
Regulatory reporting: Export regulator-ready summary with timeline, controls, and attachments.
Closure and learning: Record closure decision, residual risk, and prevention commitments.
This is a process outline, not a standard clause. The deadlines for
reporting a serious incident come from EU AI Act Article 73, not from
Ethotechnics.
Evidence pack minimum:
Policy record with approver and revision date
Risk register slice for the affected workflow
Latest test results, against thresholds declared before the tests ran
Ethotechnics Institute. (2026). Framework map for buyers and auditors. Ethotechnics Institute. https://ethotechnics.org/standards/enforceable-governance-crosswalks
MLA
Ethotechnics Institute. "Framework map for buyers and auditors." Ethotechnics Institute, 2026, https://ethotechnics.org/standards/enforceable-governance-crosswalks.
Chicago
Ethotechnics Institute. "Framework map for buyers and auditors." Ethotechnics Institute. Oct 6, 2026. https://ethotechnics.org/standards/enforceable-governance-crosswalks.
BibTeX
@misc{ethotechnics_standards_enforceable_governance_crosswalks,
title={Framework map for buyers and auditors},
author={Ethotechnics Institute},
year={2026},
howpublished={Ethotechnics Institute},
url={https://ethotechnics.org/standards/enforceable-governance-crosswalks},
version={v0.4.0}
}
RIS
TY - WEB
TI - Framework map for buyers and auditors
AU - Ethotechnics Institute
PY - 2026
UR - https://ethotechnics.org/standards/enforceable-governance-crosswalks
ER -