Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205)vsOECD AI Principles
See exactly how Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) controls map to OECD AI Principles. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) maps to OECD AI Principles with 68% coverage across 13 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 19 Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) controls identifies 6 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Colorado AI Act: Defenses, Enforcement and Rules (6-1-1705 to 1707).
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 19 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 13 of 13 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
Colorado AI Act: Definitions and Scope (6-1-1701)(2 mappings)
Colorado AI Act: Developer Duties (6-1-1702)(4 mappings)
Colorado AI Act: Deployer Duties (6-1-1703)(6 mappings)
Colorado AI Act: Consumer AI Disclosure (6-1-1704)(1 mappings)
A Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) to OECD AI Principles crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which OECD AI Principles controls your existing Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 68% in the header counts how many Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many OECD AI Principles controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) comparisons
Other OECD AI Principles comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 686 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (310K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) and OECD AI Principles?
Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) has 19 controls across its framework, while OECD AI Principles covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 13 overlapping controls (68% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Colorado AI Act: Defenses, Enforcement and Rules (6-1-1705 to 1707), where 3 Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) controls have no direct OECD AI Principles equivalent.
How many controls map between Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) and OECD AI Principles?
Of 19 total Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) controls, 13 map directly to OECD AI Principles controls, representing 68% coverage. The remaining 6 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) to OECD AI Principles?
6 Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) controls have no direct equivalent in OECD AI Principles. The highest concentration of gaps is in Colorado AI Act: Defenses, Enforcement and Rules (6-1-1705 to 1707) with 3 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) and OECD AI Principles?
The domain with the highest gap count is Colorado AI Act: Defenses, Enforcement and Rules (6-1-1705 to 1707) (3 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.