AI-generatedAisha Okonkwo
- Role
- developer, deployer
- Complexity
- medium
- Confidence
- 100 · High
- AIMS scope
- product line
As a developer, deployer with a medium-complexity AIMS, your self-attested readiness is "Substantially ready" (81/100). You are strongest in context & aims scope; the most material gap is in data & model controls.
Your results are available through this secure link.
This is the free report. The full report is a 40-page comprehensive deep-dive — clause-by-clause gap matrix, Statement-of-Applicability mapping and a 30/60/90-day certification-prep roadmap.
No foundational caps — the headline equals the weighted domain average.
Reflects how complete and consistent your scope and current-state answers are. Reported separately — it never changes readiness.
Foundational AIMS gaps that cap the score and cannot be averaged away. See findings below.
What this assessment indicates
As a developer, deployer with a medium-complexity AIMS, your self-attested readiness is "Substantially ready" (81/100). You are strongest in context & aims scope; the most material gap is in data & model controls.
Management-system domain performance
Score out of 100 · target 70Certification preparation
Foundations formingAudit-readiness signals across the certification-critical artifacts — 4 of 8 appear in place.
Top strengths
- Are third-party AI providers, models and datasets risk-assessed before use? A.10.3
- Are the boundaries and applicability of the AI management system (AIMS) defined and documented? Clause 4.3
- Is there a maintained inventory of AI systems and use cases in scope of the AIMS? Clause 4 / A.4
Top gaps
- Is data governance defined for data used in AI systems (acquisition, quality, provenance)? A.7
- Are content-safety controls (filtering, refusal, abuse handling) implemented for customer-facing generative AI? A.6.2.6
- Are generative-AI risks (hallucination, IP leakage, data exfiltration, prompt injection) assessed and tested? A.5 / A.6
- Is there an internal audit programme covering all AIMS clauses and applicable Annex A controls? Clause 9.2
- Is the Statement of Applicability complete and consistent with the risk treatment plan? Clause 6.1.3
Prioritized remediation roadmap
- P0Define data governance for AI data (quality, provenance, access)A.7Owner: Data / MLBefore certification / 0–30 days
- P0Implement content-safety controls for customer-facing generative AIA.6.2.6Owner: Product / SecurityBefore certification / 0–30 days
- P1Assess and test generative-AI risks (injection, leakage, hallucination)A.5 / A.6Owner: Security / ML30–60 days
Turn these findings into a certification-prep plan
Unlock the 40-page detailed report for a clause-by-clause gap matrix and a 30/60/90-day roadmap, or request a verified review with evidence and analyst input.
This is an informational, self-attested readiness result — not an ISO/IEC 42001 certification, accredited audit, conformity assessment, legal opinion, or proof that an AI management system meets the standard. No documents or evidence were reviewed. Foundational caps prevent a strong area from hiding a missing foundation; the confidence score reflects how complete and consistent your answers are, not whether controls truly exist.