The assessment omits evaluation of potential harms: Which gap should the reviewer flag as most critical before

The critical gap is the missing analysis of harms to affected individuals and how those harms would be mitigated.

The question

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

1. The assessment omits the model's exact inference cost per query and the total projected monthly cloud compute bill for running it at production scale.

   Plausible as operational detail, but cost figures are not the substance of an impact assessment of harms to individuals.
2. The assessment omits the résumés and detailed credentials of the data scientists who originally designed and trained the model.

   Plausible as governance context, but team credentials are not a required component of the impact assessment's harm analysis.
3. The assessment omits evaluation of potential harms to affected individuals and the mitigations for them, which is core to any impact assessment. ✓

   Correct because assessing effects and harms on affected people plus mitigations is the essence of an impact assessment, and its absence is the critical gap.
4. The assessment omits a competitor comparison showing how rival tenant-screening products perform on the same accuracy benchmarks.

   Plausible as market research, but benchmarking against competitors is a commercial exercise, not the harm-and-mitigation core of the assessment.

How to remember it

The critical gap is the missing analysis of harms to affected individuals and how those harms would be mitigated.

More Understanding How to Govern AI Deployment and Use questions

• Retrieval augmented generation: Which option best fits all three requirements? →
• The vendor's broad reuse of customer data for training: Given the deployer's own regulatory and safety →
• The insurer retains application and decision controls: Which fact identifies the party retaining →
• All 424 Understanding How to Govern AI Deployment and Use questions →