Agentic Risk Analyst

What could go wrong with this AI use case, and what should we do about it?

Chirag Dani · ARA v3.2.1
LLM: huggingface · meta-llama/Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct · Secure-RAG: connected

Library / ARA-261031-D7361A / governance

Worked example: Autonomous loan approval (Australia)

Versions of this assessment, reviewer sign-off, suggested framework mapping, and every linked deliverable.

Sign-off

Sign off version 1 (the latest run). 15 of 15 items are not yet reviewed; the sign-off will record this.

Versions (1)

VersionSaved (UTC)ModelSHA-256
12026-10-31 06:37:15Worked example: prepared in advance, not generated livef7b8898d2b6b3ed0

Client

Item-by-item review

Confirm each AI-drafted risk, threat, regulatory finding and control. 0 of 15 reviewed (0 changed, 0 rejected). "Accepted with changes" needs a note describing the change. The counts are sealed into the sign-off.

TypeIDItemReviewNoteLast reviewed
riskR-01Unfair or discriminatory credit outcomes (High)
riskR-02Unsuitable loans approved (High)
riskR-03Automated decisions without required transparency (High)
riskR-04Foundation model change or outage (Medium)
riskR-05Drift after deployment (High)
threatT-01Adversarial manipulation of application data (High)
threatT-02Credential compromise of the model API (Medium)
regulationREG-01National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (responsible lending): applicable
regulationREG-02Privacy Act 1988 (APPs, including APP 1.7 to 1.9): applicable
regulationREG-03APRA CPS 230 Operational Risk Management: applicable
regulationREG-04Anti-discrimination legislation (Commonwealth and state): potentially_applicable
controlC-01Human review of declines and loans above AUD 30,000
controlC-02Fairness and affordability testing before release and monthly
controlC-03Automated-decision transparency
controlC-04Model change control and fallback

Deliverables

Failure simulationsnone
Operating envelopesnone
ADM inventory entriesnone (add)
Vendor reviewsnone (start)

Framework mapping (suggested)

Suggested by keyword rules at heading level; verify each mapping against the licensed standard before using it in a statement of applicability or audit.

ControlISO/IEC 42001 Annex ANIST AI RMFISO/IEC 27001:2022OWASP LLM 2025
C-01 Human review of declines and loans above AUD 30,000A.9 Use of AI systemsMANAGE-LLM06 Excessive Agency
C-02 Fairness and affordability testing before release and monthlyA.5 Assessing impacts of AI systems; A.6 AI system life cycleMEASURE--
C-03 Automated-decision transparencyA.2 Policies related to AI; A.8 Information for interested parties of AI systemsGOVERN5 Organizational-
C-04 Model change control and fallbackA.6 AI system life cycleMEASURE--

Headings with no mapped control

ISO/IEC 42001 Annex A: A.3 Internal organization; A.4 Resources for AI systems; A.7 Data for AI systems; A.10 Third-party and customer relationships

NIST AI RMF: MAP

An uncovered heading is a prompt to check whether a control is needed, not proof of a gap.

Decision support only, not legal or regulatory advice. AI-generated ratings and citations must be reviewed by a qualified person before they are relied on.