When an AI system significantly impacts a person, community, group or environment, there should be a timely process that lets people challenge the use or outcomes of the system. Mechanisms should be efficient and accessible, and the threshold for significant impact depends on the context, impact and application. Knowing redress is possible supports public trust, and particular attention should be paid to vulnerable persons or groups. Contestability requires sufficient access to the information available to the algorithm and the inferences drawn, and decisions significantly affecting rights need an effective oversight system that makes appropriate use of human judgment.
This control maps to 3 controls across 2 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 3 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.