The EU AI Act outlines what must be included intechnical documentationfor high-risk systems. These requirements are designed to supportconformity assessment, transparency, and traceability.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report 2025:

“It mandates drawing up technical documentation… must include a general description of the AI system, the intended purpose, and a detailed description of the elements and development process.” (p. 34)

“Documentation… includes training, testing, evaluation procedures, andappropriateness of performance metrics.” (p. 34–35)

Therisk management systemis addressed separately through arisk management plan, not within the technical documentation itself.

Thus:

A, C, and Dare explicitly required in thetechnical documentation.

B, while important, is part of therisk management process, not a required section oftechnical documentation.

The correct answer is D, model disgorgement. This technique refers to removing or eliminating the influence of improperly obtained, biased, or unlawfully used data from a trained machine learning model. It is increasingly discussed in AI governance and regulatory enforcement, particularly where models have been trained on data collected without proper consent or in violation of legal requirements. Instead of merely cleaning datasets, model disgorgement may require retraining or discarding the model entirely to ensure that problematic data no longer influences outputs. This aligns with accountability and compliance principles in AI governance, where organizations must ensure lawful data use throughout the AI lifecycle. Other options like data cleansing and de-duplication address data quality but do not fully remove learned patterns already embedded in trained models.

The most challenging aspect of managing a data access request in this scenario is dealing with unstructured data that cannot be easily disentangled from other data, including information about other individuals. Unstructured data, such as free-text inputs or social media posts, often lacks a clear structure and may be intermingled with data from multiple individuals, making it difficult to isolate the specific data related to the requester. This complexity poses significant challenges in complying with data access requests under privacy laws. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Data Subject Rights and Data Management.

An AI system that maintains its level of performance within defined acceptable limits despite real-world or adversarial conditions is described as resilient. Resilience in AI refers to the system ' s ability to withstand and recover from unexpected challenges, such as cyber-attacks, hardware failures, or unusual input data. This characteristic ensures that the AI system can continue to function effectively and reliably in various conditions, maintaining performance and integrity. Robustness, on the other hand, focuses on the system ' s strength against errors, while reliability ensures consistent performance over time. Resilience combines these aspects with the capacity to adapt and recover.

Retraining an LLM (Large Language Model) is primarily done to improve or maintain its performance as data changes over time, to fine-tune it for specific use cases, and to incorporate new data interpretations to enhance accuracy and relevance. However, ensuring interpretability of the model ' s predictions is not typically a reason for retraining. Interpretability relates to how easily the outputs of the model can be understood and explained, which is generally addressed through different techniques or methods rather than through the retraining process itself. References to this can be found in the IAPP AIGP Body of Knowledge discussing model retraining and interpretability as separate concepts.

The White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights focuses on protecting civil rights, privacy, and ensuring AI systems are safe and effective. It includes principles like data privacy (D), human alternatives (A), and safe and effective systems (C). However, it does not specifically address high-risk mitigation standards as a distinct category (B).

The correct answer isA. While TEVV is important inlater lifecycle phases, it isnot the primary considerationwhen evaluating and prioritizinguse cases.

From the AIGP Body of Knowledge – Use Case Assessment Module:

“Use case evaluation focuses on value, impact, fairness, and accessibility—technical testing considerations come later.”

ILT Guide confirms:

“Organizations should first assess whether the AI system provides equitable outcomes and aligns with stakeholder expectations. TEVV is part of implementation, not initial prioritization.”

Thus,Ais not a top-level consideration during use caseselection.

To maintain fairness in a deployed system, it is crucial to monitor for data drift that may affect performance and accuracy. Data drift occurs when the statistical properties of the input data change over time, which can lead to a decline in model performance. Continuous monitoring and updating of the model with new data ensure that it remains fair and accurate, adapting to any changes in the data distribution. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Post-Deployment Monitoring and Model Maintenance.

The correct answer isD. GPS location data isnot biometric data—it is consideredgeolocation data, which is personal data butnot biometricunder most U.S. laws.

From the AIGP ILT Guide (Data Privacy Module):

“Biometric data includes measurable biological or behavioral characteristics such as iris scans, facial recognition, voice prints, and keystroke patterns when used for identification.”

AI Governance in Practice Report 2025 (Privacy and Data Protection section):

“Location data, while sensitive, is not considered biometric unless it’s tied to a uniquely identifyingbiological trait.”

Thus,GPS location data, while potentially sensitive, is not classified as biometric.

The NIST AI Risk Management Framework’s Govern function emphasizes the importance of establishing accountability structures that empower and train cross-functional teams. This is crucial because cross-functional teams bring diverse perspectives and expertise, which are essential for effective AI governance and risk management. Training these teams ensures that they are well-equipped to handle their responsibilities and can make informed decisions that align with the organization’s AI principles and ethical standards. Reference: NIST AI Risk Management Framework documentation, Govern function section.