Test security and rare-case safety: Before approval, which evidence best addresses both risks and the

Both security resistance and safe behavior under rare or adversarial conditions require evidence, plus failure response controls.

The question

Preparing for AIGP? Take the free 5-min readiness quiz →

1. Compare ranking outcomes across applicant groups and document the fairness review process.

   Group comparisons may reveal disparate outcomes, but they do not directly resolve intrusion, adversarial safety, or rare-case robustness concerns.
2. Evaluate harmful recommendations on unusual cases and simulate adversarial inputs.

   This addresses safety and unusual inputs but leaves the stated security concern and operational response controls insufficiently evidenced.
3. Test security and rare-case safety, with response controls. ✓

   This directly tests unauthorized interference and unsafe behavior on adversarial and rare inputs, while establishing how failures will be handled.
4. Review the production interface through penetration testing and access-control checks.

   These checks address unauthorized access and manipulation but do not evaluate unsafe recommendations for rare application types or define failure responses.

How to remember it

Both security resistance and safe behavior under rare or adversarial conditions require evidence, plus failure response controls.

More Understanding the Foundations of AI Governance questions

• Publish system outcomes and retain case-level decision: Which evidence plan best matches those distinct needs? →
• Tie the metric choice to the relevant access harms: What evidence should guide approval? →
• Provide engineers feature attributions and leaders: Which evidence plan best serves both audiences? →
• All 337 Understanding the Foundations of AI Governance questions →