Contain the harm: Which approach best satisfies incident management and documentation obligations under

Active harm demands containment plus a documented incident record with root cause, remediation, and any mandated reporting, not a partial fix.

The question

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

1. Roll back to the prior model version immediately and treat the event as resolved once accuracy returns to its baseline range.

   Almost right because rollback aids containment, but declaring resolution without documentation or root-cause analysis leaves the obligation unmet.
2. Open a monitoring ticket to watch the subgroup trend and escalate to a formal incident only if the disparity persists next quarter.

   Plausible but wrong: active patient harm is already an incident, so deferring escalation delays containment and any reporting duty.
3. Notify affected users and publish an updated model card describing the limitation while the model continues serving predictions.

   Plausible but wrong: transparency is necessary but continuing to serve a harming model fails the containment and incident-record obligations.
4. Contain the harm, log the incident with timeline and root cause, and record remediation and any required regulator notification. ✓

   Correct because III.C.4 requires managing incidents and documenting them, including containment, root cause, remediation, and reporting where obligated.

How to remember it

Active harm demands containment plus a documented incident record with root cause, remediation, and any mandated reporting, not a partial fix.

More Understanding How to Govern AI Development questions

• Conduct scheduled red teaming and security testing: Which option best fits that periodic safety-assessment →
• Data drift, where production input distributions diverge: Which factor does the evidence most directly →
• Technical documentation: Which set best matches the requirement? →
• All 426 Understanding How to Govern AI Development questions →