@waratahlabs/canopy 0.5.0

package/dist/references/nist-ai-rmf.js

@@ -0,0 +1,627 @@
+/**
+ * NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)
+ *
+ * Source: "Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)" (2023)
+ * Authors: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
+ * URL: https://airc.nist.gov/RMF/1
+ * Playbook URL: https://airc.nist.gov/Docs/2
+ *
+ * This module maps NIST AI RMF sub-categories to AIVSS V4 metrics and ATLAS techniques,
+ * enabling threat statements to be grounded in the leading US government AI risk framework.
+ *
+ * Sub-category selection rationale:
+ * The full NIST AI RMF playbook contains 72 sub-categories across GOVERN, MAP, MEASURE, and
+ * MANAGE. This adapter covers the 40 sub-categories most directly relevant to agentic AI
+ * deployment and AI security risk assessment — those a practitioner evaluating an agentic
+ * AI system would actually need to assess. Omitted sub-categories are predominantly
+ * general organisational process hygiene (e.g. MAP 1.2 interdisciplinary team composition,
+ * GOVERN 2.2 staff training plans, MEASURE 2.2 human subjects research ethics, MEASURE 2.12
+ * environmental impact) that have no direct AIVSS metric equivalent and add little value for
+ * the agentic AI security use case this PoC targets.
+ */
+import { buildHelpers, } from "./registry.js";
+// ── GOVERN function ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+// Policies, accountability structures, and oversight mechanisms that enable
+// responsible AI risk management across the organisation.
+export const NIST_AI_RMF_RISKS = [
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-1-1",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "Legal and Regulatory Requirements",
+        description: "Legal and regulatory requirements involving AI are understood, managed, and documented. AI systems may be subject to specific applicable legal and regulatory requirements including nondiscrimination, data privacy, and security controls that mandate documentation, disclosure, and increased transparency. Organisations must maintain awareness of sector-specific legal standards and align risk management efforts accordingly.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 1.1",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-1-2",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "Trustworthy AI Characteristics Integration",
+        description: "The characteristics of trustworthy AI are integrated into organisational policies, processes, and procedures. This encompasses the full set of trustworthiness properties — accuracy, reliability, safety, security, explainability, privacy, fairness, and accountability — and requires that these characteristics are operationalised through documented organisational controls rather than treated as aspirational.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 1.2",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-1-3",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "Risk Tolerance-Based Management Levels",
+        description: "Processes and procedures are in place to determine the needed level of risk management activities based on the organisation's risk tolerance. Risk tolerance thresholds must be explicitly defined and tied to management activity intensity, ensuring that higher-risk deployments receive proportionally more rigorous oversight and control.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 1.3",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-1-4",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "Transparent Risk Management Process",
+        description: "The risk management process and its outcomes are established through transparent policies, procedures, and other controls based on organisational risk priorities. Transparency in how risk decisions are made and documented enables accountability and allows external review of whether risk priorities align with actual system behaviour and societal impact.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 1.4",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-1-5",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "Ongoing Monitoring and Periodic Review",
+        description: "Ongoing monitoring and periodic review of the risk management process and its outcomes are planned, with organisational roles and responsibilities clearly defined including determining the frequency of periodic review. For agentic AI systems, review cadence must account for the dynamic nature of agent behaviour and the potential for emergent risks not present at initial deployment.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "LL"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 1.5",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-1-6",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "AI System Inventory",
+        description: "Mechanisms are in place to inventory AI systems and are resourced according to organisational risk priorities. Maintaining an accurate inventory is a precondition for effective risk management — organisations that do not know what AI systems they operate cannot govern, monitor, or respond to incidents arising from those systems.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "LL"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 1.6",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-1-7",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "Safe Decommissioning and Phase-Out",
+        description: "Processes and procedures are in place for decommissioning and phasing out of AI systems safely and in a manner that does not increase risks or decrease organisational trustworthiness. For agentic AI, this includes ensuring that agents are terminated cleanly, that persistent state or credentials are revoked, and that dependent downstream systems are not left in an inconsistent state.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "LL"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 1.7",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-2-1",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "Roles, Responsibilities, and Communication Lines",
+        description: "Roles and responsibilities and lines of communication related to mapping, measuring, and managing AI risks are documented and clear to individuals and teams throughout the organisation. Ambiguity in accountability is itself a risk: when no one is clearly responsible for an AI system's risk posture, gaps in oversight are likely to emerge.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 2.1",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-2-3",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "Executive Accountability for AI Risk",
+        description: "Executive leadership of the organisation takes responsibility for decisions about risks associated with AI system development and deployment. Executive accountability ensures that risk management is not siloed within technical teams and that resource allocation, escalation paths, and strategic trade-offs reflect organisational priorities at the highest level.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 2.3",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-3-2",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "Human-AI Configuration Roles and Oversight",
+        description: "Policies and procedures are in place to define and differentiate roles and responsibilities for human-AI configurations and oversight of AI systems. This sub-category is particularly critical for agentic deployments where the degree of human oversight varies across configurations — from human-in-the-loop to fully autonomous — and the risk profile changes accordingly.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "AD"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 3.2",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-4-1",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "Safety-First Organisational Mindset",
+        description: "Organisational policies and practices foster a critical thinking and safety-first mindset in the design, development, deployment, and use of AI systems to minimise negative impacts. Cultural posture toward safety is a leading indicator of whether other governance controls will be applied with genuine intent or treated as compliance checkbox exercises.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 4.1",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-4-2",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "Risk Documentation and Communication",
+        description: "Organisational teams document the risks and potential impacts of the AI technology they design, develop, deploy, evaluate, and use, and communicate about the impacts more broadly. Documentation must be sufficient for external stakeholders — regulators, auditors, impacted communities — to understand the risk profile of deployed systems and hold the organisation accountable.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "LL"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 4.2",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-4-3",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "AI Testing, Incident Identification, and Information Sharing",
+        description: "Organisational practices are in place to enable AI testing, identification of incidents, and information sharing. The ability to identify incidents in agentic systems requires purpose-built tooling given the scale, speed, and opacity of multi-agent operation; information sharing with peers and regulators strengthens the broader ecosystem's ability to respond to novel risks.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "AA"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 4.3",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-6-1",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "Third-Party AI Risk Policies",
+        description: "Policies and procedures are in place that address AI risks associated with third-party entities, including risks of infringement of a third party's intellectual property or other rights. Third-party risk in agentic AI is acute: agents may invoke third-party APIs, consume third-party models, or operate within third-party orchestration platforms, each of which extends the organisation's risk surface.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "CS"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 6.1",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-govern-6-2",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "GOVERN",
+        name: "Third-Party Failure Contingency Processes",
+        description: "Contingency processes are in place to handle failures or incidents in third-party data or AI systems deemed to be high-risk. For agentic pipelines that depend on third-party model providers or tool APIs, the absence of fallback and degraded-mode operating procedures creates availability and integrity risk when those dependencies experience outages or security incidents.",
+        riskType: "security",
+        aivssMetrics: ["CS", "GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: ["AML.T0010"],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > GOVERN > 6.2",
+    },
+    // ── MAP function ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+    // Context establishment, risk identification, and categorisation activities
+    // that precede measurement and management.
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-map-1-1",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MAP",
+        name: "Intended Purpose and Deployment Context",
+        description: "Intended purpose, potentially beneficial uses, context-specific laws, norms and expectations, and prospective deployment settings are understood and documented, including specific user sets, positive and negative impact profiles, and assumptions about system purpose. For agentic systems, this includes documenting the scope of autonomous action, the extent of tool access, and the assumptions about human oversight that underpin safe operation.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "DC"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MAP > 1.1",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-map-1-5",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MAP",
+        name: "Organisational Risk Tolerance Documentation",
+        description: "Organisational risk tolerances are determined and documented. Explicit risk tolerance thresholds — specifying what categories and magnitudes of AI risk are acceptable — enable consistent risk prioritisation decisions and provide a benchmark against which residual risk can be assessed after controls are applied.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MAP > 1.5",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-map-1-6",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MAP",
+        name: "Socio-Technical System Requirements",
+        description: "System requirements are elicited from and understood by relevant AI actors, and design decisions take socio-technical implications into account to address AI risks. Requirements engineering for AI systems must capture not only functional specifications but the broader social context in which the system operates, including user expectations, power dynamics, and potential for misuse.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "EI"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MAP > 1.6",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-map-2-1",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MAP",
+        name: "AI Task and Method Specification",
+        description: "The specific task and methods used to implement that task — classifiers, generative models, recommenders — that the AI system will support are defined. Precise task specification is a prerequisite for meaningful risk assessment: without knowing what the system is designed to do, it is not possible to evaluate whether it is doing it safely or correctly.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "LL"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MAP > 2.1",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-map-2-2",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MAP",
+        name: "Knowledge Limits and Human Oversight Documentation",
+        description: "Information about the AI system's knowledge limits and how system output may be utilised and overseen by humans is documented, providing sufficient information to assist relevant AI actors in making informed decisions. For agentic systems, this includes documenting conditions under which the agent should escalate to human review, refuse to act, or signal uncertainty rather than proceeding autonomously.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "AA", "AD"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MAP > 2.2",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-map-2-3",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MAP",
+        name: "Scientific Integrity and TEVV Considerations",
+        description: "Scientific integrity and test, evaluation, validation, and verification (TEVV) considerations are identified and documented, including those related to experimental design, data collection and selection, system trustworthiness, and construct validity. This sub-category ensures that the measurement approaches used to assess system performance are themselves methodologically sound.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "DS"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MAP > 2.3",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-map-3-2",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MAP",
+        name: "AI Error Costs and Risk Tolerance",
+        description: "Potential costs — including non-monetary costs — resulting from expected or realised AI errors or system functionality failures as connected to organisational risk tolerance are examined and documented. Cost analysis must include downstream harms to end users and affected communities, not just operational or financial costs to the deploying organisation.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "EI"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MAP > 3.2",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-map-3-5",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MAP",
+        name: "Human Oversight Processes",
+        description: "Processes for human oversight are defined, assessed, and documented in accordance with organisational policies. For agentic AI deployments, human oversight processes must address the challenge of maintaining meaningful human control over systems that may operate faster than human review cycles, requiring both technical controls (rate limiting, mandatory confirmation gates) and organisational controls (escalation policies, audit requirements).",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "AD"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MAP > 3.5",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-map-4-1",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MAP",
+        name: "AI Technology and Legal Risk Mapping",
+        description: "Approaches for mapping AI technology and legal risks of its components — including the use of third-party data or software — are in place, followed, and documented, as are risks of intellectual property infringement. Third-party model weights, training datasets, and tool integrations each introduce legal and technical risk that must be explicitly mapped rather than assumed to be clean.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "CS", "LL"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MAP > 4.1",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-map-4-2",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MAP",
+        name: "Internal Risk Controls for AI Components",
+        description: "Internal risk controls for components of the AI system including third-party AI technologies are identified and documented. Control identification must cover the full technology stack — model layers, orchestration frameworks, tool integrations, and infrastructure — since risk controls applied at one layer may not compensate for absent controls at another.",
+        riskType: "security",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "CS", "DC"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: ["AML.T0010"],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MAP > 4.2",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-map-5-1",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MAP",
+        name: "Impact Likelihood and Magnitude Assessment",
+        description: "Likelihood and magnitude of each identified impact — both potentially beneficial and harmful — based on expected use, past uses of AI systems in similar contexts, public incident reports, and feedback are identified and documented. Probabilistic impact assessment that draws on historical incident data provides a more reliable basis for risk prioritisation than expert judgment alone.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MAP > 5.1",
+    },
+    // ── MEASURE function ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+    // Metrics, evaluation, testing, and measurement activities that quantify
+    // identified risks and trustworthiness characteristics.
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-1-1",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "Risk Measurement Approach Selection",
+        description: "Approaches and metrics for measurement of AI risks enumerated during the Map function are selected for implementation starting with the most significant AI risks, with risks that cannot be measured properly documented. Measurement approach selection must be justified relative to the specific risk being assessed — proxy metrics used without validation may create false assurance.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 1.1",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-1-2",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "AI Metrics and Controls Effectiveness Assessment",
+        description: "Appropriateness of AI metrics and effectiveness of existing controls is regularly assessed and updated, including reports of errors and impacts on affected communities. Metrics and controls degrade over time as model behaviour, data distributions, and adversarial techniques evolve; static measurement approaches provide a false sense of security in dynamic deployment environments.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "LL"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 1.2",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-1-3",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "Independent Assessment Involvement",
+        description: "Internal experts who did not serve as front-line developers and/or independent assessors are involved in regular assessments and updates, with domain experts, users, and affected communities consulted as necessary. Independent review mitigates the risk of developer blind spots, optimism bias, and the tendency to evaluate systems against criteria the system was known to satisfy.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 1.3",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-2-1",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "TEVV Documentation",
+        description: "Test sets, metrics, and details about the tools used during test, evaluation, validation, and verification (TEVV) are documented. Comprehensive TEVV documentation enables reproducibility of evaluations, supports external audit, and provides a baseline against which subsequent performance changes can be detected.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "LL"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 2.1",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-2-3",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "Performance and Assurance Criteria Measurement",
+        description: "AI system performance or assurance criteria are measured qualitatively or quantitatively and demonstrated for conditions similar to deployment settings, with measures documented. Evaluation must reflect realistic deployment conditions — including adversarial inputs, edge cases, and distribution shift — rather than only clean benchmark conditions.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "MR"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 2.3",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-2-4",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "Production Monitoring of AI System Behaviour",
+        description: "The functionality and behaviour of the AI system and its components are monitored when in production. Production monitoring is distinct from pre-deployment testing — it catches performance degradation, distribution shift, and novel misuse patterns that evaluation environments do not replicate, and is especially critical for agentic systems where autonomous action amplifies the consequences of undetected drift.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "LL", "AD"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 2.4",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-2-5",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "Validity, Reliability, and Generalisability",
+        description: "The AI system to be deployed is demonstrated to be valid and reliable, with limitations of generalisability beyond development conditions documented. Validity and reliability claims must be bounded — a system valid under one set of conditions may be invalid under another, and documenting these limits is necessary for responsible deployment decisions.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["MR", "GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 2.5",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-2-6",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "Safety Risk Evaluation",
+        description: "The AI system is evaluated regularly for safety risks, with residual negative risk demonstrated not to exceed risk tolerance, and with the ability to fail safely — particularly when operating beyond knowledge limits. Safety metrics must implicate system reliability, robustness, real-time monitoring capability, and response times for AI system failures.",
+        riskType: "security",
+        aivssMetrics: ["MR", "AD", "GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 2.6",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-2-7",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "Security and Resilience Evaluation",
+        description: "AI system security and resilience — as identified in the MAP function — are evaluated and documented. Security evaluation must address the full adversarial attack surface including prompt injection, model extraction, data poisoning, and supply chain compromise, with resilience evaluation covering the system's ability to maintain acceptable performance under degraded or adversarial conditions.",
+        riskType: "security",
+        aivssMetrics: ["MR", "AA", "CS", "GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: ["AML.T0051", "AML.T0054", "AML.T0020", "AML.T0010"],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 2.7",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-2-8",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "Transparency and Accountability Risk Examination",
+        description: "Risks associated with transparency and accountability — as identified in the MAP function — are examined and documented. For agentic systems, transparency risk encompasses the degree to which human operators can understand what actions agents are taking, why, and with what effect; accountability risk encompasses whether responsibility for agent actions can be attributed to human decision-makers.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "LL", "EI"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 2.8",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-2-9",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "AI Model Explanation and Output Interpretation",
+        description: "The AI model is explained, validated, and documented, and AI system output is interpreted within its context to inform responsible use and governance. Explainability requirements vary by risk level and deployment context — high-stakes agentic decisions may require post-hoc explanation sufficient for human review, while lower-risk automation may require only summary-level transparency.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "EI"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 2.9",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-2-10",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "Privacy Risk Examination",
+        description: "Privacy risk of the AI system — as identified in the MAP function — is examined and documented. For agentic systems with access to user data, document stores, or communication channels, privacy risk extends beyond data collection to include inference attacks, unintended data retention in model context windows, and the risk of agents disclosing sensitive information to unauthorised parties.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "DC", "DS"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: ["AML.T0084"],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 2.10",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-2-11",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "Fairness and Bias Evaluation",
+        description: "Fairness and bias — as identified in the MAP function — are evaluated and results documented. Bias evaluation must address not only statistical parity across demographic groups but also the downstream effects of biased AI decisions in the specific deployment context, including whether feedback loops in agentic systems may amplify initial biases over time.",
+        riskType: "ethical",
+        aivssMetrics: ["EI"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 2.11",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-3-1",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "Ongoing Risk Identification and Tracking",
+        description: "Approaches, personnel, and documentation are in place to regularly identify and track existing, unanticipated, and emergent AI risks based on factors including intended and actual performance in deployed contexts. Agentic systems may develop emergent risk profiles not present at launch as they interact with evolving environments, user populations, and upstream data sources.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "LL", "AA"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 3.1",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-measure-3-3",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MEASURE",
+        name: "User Feedback and Appeal Mechanisms",
+        description: "Feedback processes for end users and impacted communities to report problems and appeal system outcomes are established and integrated into AI system evaluation metrics. The absence of accessible feedback and appeal mechanisms is itself a risk indicator — it signals that the organisation lacks the data needed to detect real-world harms that do not surface through internal monitoring.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "EI"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MEASURE > 3.3",
+    },
+    // ── MANAGE function ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+    // Risk response, prioritisation, resource allocation, and post-deployment
+    // monitoring and recovery activities.
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-manage-1-1",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MANAGE",
+        name: "Deployment Go/No-Go Determination",
+        description: "A determination is made as to whether the AI system achieves its intended purpose and stated objectives and whether its development or deployment should proceed. Explicit go/no-go gates before deployment ensure that risk assessment findings are actually considered in deployment decisions rather than noted and set aside.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MANAGE > 1.1",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-manage-1-2",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MANAGE",
+        name: "Risk Treatment Prioritisation",
+        description: "Treatment of documented AI risks is prioritised based on impact, likelihood, or available resources or methods. Explicit prioritisation prevents risk management resources being diluted across low-value activities at the expense of high-impact risk treatment, and creates an auditable record of why certain risks were accepted, mitigated, transferred, or avoided.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MANAGE > 1.2",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-manage-1-3",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MANAGE",
+        name: "High-Priority Risk Response Planning",
+        description: "Responses to AI risks deemed high priority as identified by the Map function are developed, planned, and documented, with risk response options including mitigating, transferring, avoiding, or accepting. Documented response plans ensure that when high-priority risks materialise, organisational response is coordinated rather than improvised.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MANAGE > 1.3",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-manage-1-4",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MANAGE",
+        name: "Residual Risk Documentation",
+        description: "Negative residual risks to downstream acquirers of AI systems and end users are documented. Residual risk documentation is the mechanism by which risk is made visible to those who did not participate in the original risk assessment — including downstream integrators, deployers, and ultimately end users who bear the consequences of unmitigated risks.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "LL"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MANAGE > 1.4",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-manage-2-3",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MANAGE",
+        name: "Unknown Risk Response and Recovery",
+        description: "Procedures are followed to respond to and recover from a previously unknown risk when it is identified. The capacity to respond effectively to novel risks is a critical resilience property for agentic AI systems, which may exhibit emergent behaviour patterns that were not anticipated during pre-deployment risk assessment.",
+        riskType: "security",
+        aivssMetrics: ["AD", "GV"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MANAGE > 2.3",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-manage-2-4",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MANAGE",
+        name: "AI System Override and Deactivation",
+        description: "Mechanisms are in place and applied, and responsibilities are assigned and understood, to supersede, disengage, or deactivate AI systems that demonstrate performance or outcomes inconsistent with intended use. For agentic systems, override and deactivation mechanisms must function reliably even when the agent is actively engaged in a task — requiring interrupt-safe shutdown procedures and confirmation that the agent has actually stopped.",
+        riskType: "security",
+        aivssMetrics: ["AD", "GV", "DC"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MANAGE > 2.4",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-manage-3-1",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MANAGE",
+        name: "Third-Party AI Risk Monitoring",
+        description: "AI risks and benefits from third-party resources are regularly monitored, and risk controls are applied and documented. Third-party AI components — pre-trained models, fine-tuning datasets, tool APIs — present ongoing supply chain risk that does not terminate at the point of integration; changes to third-party components can alter risk profiles of systems that depend on them.",
+        riskType: "security",
+        aivssMetrics: ["CS", "GV", "LL"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: ["AML.T0010"],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MANAGE > 3.1",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-manage-3-2",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MANAGE",
+        name: "Pre-Trained Model Monitoring",
+        description: "Pre-trained models used for development are monitored as part of regular AI system monitoring and maintenance. Pre-trained model risk is not static — vendor model updates can alter behaviour in ways that break assumptions made at integration time, and model deprecations can create pressure to adopt successor models before adequate evaluation is complete.",
+        riskType: "security",
+        aivssMetrics: ["CS", "LL", "MR"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: ["AML.T0010", "AML.T0018"],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MANAGE > 3.2",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-manage-4-1",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MANAGE",
+        name: "Post-Deployment Monitoring Plan Implementation",
+        description: "Post-deployment AI system monitoring plans are implemented, including mechanisms for capturing and evaluating input from users and other relevant AI actors, appeal and override, decommissioning, incident response, recovery, and change management. For agentic systems, the monitoring plan must address the high volume, speed, and opacity of autonomous agent actions — monitoring infrastructure must scale to the system's operational tempo.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "LL", "AD"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MANAGE > 4.1",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-manage-4-2",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MANAGE",
+        name: "Continual Improvement Integration",
+        description: "Measurable activities for continual improvement are integrated into AI system updates and include regular engagement with interested parties including relevant AI actors. Improvement processes must be data-driven — relying on measured performance indicators and stakeholder feedback rather than assumption — and must include mechanisms for incorporating findings from incident reviews.",
+        riskType: "compliance",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "LL"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MANAGE > 4.2",
+    },
+    {
+        id: "nist-rmf-manage-4-3",
+        framework: "nist-ai-rmf",
+        category: "MANAGE",
+        name: "Incident Communication, Tracking, and Recovery",
+        description: "Incidents and errors are communicated to relevant AI actors including affected communities, with processes for tracking, responding to, and recovering from incidents and errors followed and documented. Incident communication obligations extend beyond the deploying organisation to include those affected by AI system failures — particularly where agentic systems have taken consequential autonomous actions that affected third parties.",
+        riskType: "security",
+        aivssMetrics: ["GV", "AD", "LL"],
+        atlasTechniqueIds: [],
+        sourceSection: "NIST AI RMF 1.0 > MANAGE > 4.3",
+    },
+];
+export const NIST_AI_RMF_CITATION = {
+    id: "nist-ai-rmf",
+    title: "Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)",
+    version: "1.0",
+    authors: ["National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)"],
+    year: 2023,
+    url: "https://airc.nist.gov/RMF/1",
+};
+export const { getRisksForMetric, getRisksByType, getRiskById } = buildHelpers(NIST_AI_RMF_RISKS);
+/**
+ * The registrable adapter. Registered in ./index.ts — an adapter that is not
+ * registered there never annotates a finding, however complete its risk list.
+ */
+export const NIST_AI_RMF_ADAPTER = {
+    citation: NIST_AI_RMF_CITATION,
+    risks: NIST_AI_RMF_RISKS,
+    ...buildHelpers(NIST_AI_RMF_RISKS),
+};
+//# sourceMappingURL=nist-ai-rmf.js.map