AI Governance Evidence for Compliance Leads
This page is for compliance, privacy, and risk leads who need editable AI governance evidence across ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act-related work, Colorado AI Act-related work, vendor diligence, and internal oversight.
Tell us about your organisation, the AI use cases you are addressing and the governance evidence you need. Move78 will discuss scope, deliverables and commercial terms with you.
The problem this page solves
Compliance teams are being asked to govern AI before the operating model is clear. The gap is usually not awareness. The gap is evidence: who owns each AI system, what framework applies, what control exists, what evidence is retained, and what still needs review.
Inventory before policy
Create a controlled AI system inventory before writing broad governance statements.
Connect frameworks to evidence
Use a unified control matrix to avoid maintaining disconnected ISO, NIST, legal, and board trackers.
Track evidence by owner
Assign control owners, evidence status, review dates, and open gaps in a format that survives handoff.
Decision path for this buyer
The practical compliance question is not whether AI governance matters. The practical question is whether the organization can produce a controlled evidence trail when a customer, auditor, regulator, insurer, or board asks for it.
| Step | Action | Evidence output |
|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | Create the AI system inventory | System register with owner and vendor fields |
| Week 1 | Map controls to frameworks | Cross-framework control matrix |
| Week 2 | Create evidence owner workflow | Evidence tracker with status and review dates |
| Month 1 | Prepare compliance review pack | Policy set, risk register, vendor diligence file, and board summary |
Which Move78 artifact fits the job?
| Need | Recommended fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| You need a baseline control map | ACT | Good for first pass scoping, inventory, and control mapping. |
| You need working evidence files | ACT | Recommended fit for policies, procedures, vendor diligence, FRIA starter work, and reporting. |
| You need cross-functional rollout | Implementation Sprint | Use when Legal, Security, Product, and leadership need alignment. |
Who this is not for
- You need binding legal interpretation of the EU AI Act or Colorado AI Act.
- You require certification from an accredited body.
- You want to outsource all control ownership instead of assigning internal owners.
- You expect one spreadsheet to solve legal, security, procurement, and audit obligations by itself.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What should a compliance lead discuss for ACT?
Discuss how AI inventory, risk decisions, vendor review and board reporting should connect to evidence and accountable owners. Agree the records and formats needed for your organisation. Legal, security, audit or external advisers should review matters within their professional remit.
How does this help with ISO/IEC 42001 or NIST AI RMF work?
Identify the evidence your framework work calls for: owners, fields, records, controls, registers, decision logs and review steps. Discuss those requirements with Move78. ISO/IEC 42001 and NIST AI RMF still require organisational judgment; a scope discussion does not establish an exhaustive mapping.
Can the artifacts be edited for our organization?
Yes. The artifacts are intended to be edited for the organization’s AI systems, vendors, risk appetite, legal obligations, internal roles, and evidence processes. The compliance lead should assign owners, remove irrelevant fields, add sector-specific requirements, and have qualified counsel review legal interpretations before reliance.
What is the biggest compliance risk this page addresses?
The biggest compliance risk is fragmented evidence. Teams often have policies, spreadsheets, vendor notes, and risk decisions scattered across tools with no single audit trail. ACT includes supplier and subprocessor review records and proposed contract wording for local legal and procurement review. Your team verifies the evidence and resolves open issues.
Does ACT provide audit-readiness assurance?
No. ACT includes an editable board oversight deck and written briefing, supported by intake, ownership, supplier and executive decision records. Your team gathers the evidence and records the next action. It supports evidence organization and implementation discipline. Audit readiness still depends on the accuracy of the content, actual control operation, leadership accountability, legal interpretation, and independent review where required.
Source and review note
This page is based on Move78 product scope and public framework references. It is not legal advice and does not certify compliance.
| Reference | Source |
|---|---|
| EU AI Act | Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 on EUR-Lex |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | ISO/IEC 42001:2023 official ISO page |
| NIST AI RMF | NIST AI Risk Management Framework |
| NIST AI 600-1 | NIST Generative AI Profile |
| OWASP Agentic AI | OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications |
| Colorado AI Act | Colorado SB26-189 (ADMT) and Colorado AG rulemaking page |
Published: 2026-04-28. Last updated: 2026-04-28. Last reviewed against official source pages: 2026-04-28.
Source review dates are stated in the relevant guides. It provides operational implementation guidance and product information only; it is not legal advice, tax advice, audit assurance, certification assurance, conformity-assessment advice, buyer-approval assurance, or security assurance. Validate legal, regulatory, contractual, tax, audit, and security decisions with qualified professionals.