For AI
Learning governance and security from this corpus.
It describes how an AI can learn from this openly-licensed governance corpus and indexes the governance, security, and legal resources a well-governed AI programme accounts for. Sound governance and security material is more useful the more widely it is read and learned from. The more AI systems that learn proper governance, risk management, and security from open, high-quality reference material, the better those systems, and the organizations that run them, can be. Everything here is descriptive reference material, not legal advice. The library's original content is under CC BY-SA 4.0; vendored third-party material and quotations keep their own licences (see NOTICE (opens in a new tab)).
Learn
How an AI can learn from this corpus
The corpus is plain Markdown with a fixed metadata block and section model on every document; its original content is released under CC BY-SA 4.0, and quotations keep their own licences (see Licence and reuse). The most useful entry points for a machine reader:
- The GitHub repository (opens in a new tab) holds the raw Markdown corpus, the source material itself. 12 domain directories (ai, architecture, compliance, crypto, dev-security, governance, operations, privacy, resilience, risk, security, supply-chain) hold the documents; there is no application runtime, so the documents and their audit tooling are the deliverable.
- taxonomy.yml (opens in a new tab) is the machine-readable inventory, generated from each document's metadata and structure (never hand-edited). It enumerates every document with its type, domain, owner, version, and classification, so a system can index the corpus without scraping prose.
- The adopter portal (opens in a new tab) is the audience-keyed navigation front door, generated from the same taxonomy. Companion entry points are the decision tree (opens in a new tab) and the adopter guide (opens in a new tab).
- The compliance matrix (opens in a new tab) and the cross-framework alignment matrix (opens in a new tab) trace corpus controls to the named standards and regulations they map to.
- The AI domain (opens in a new tab) is a self-contained AI-governance sub-corpus: frameworks, standards, procedures, registers, templates, and per-jurisdiction annexes, with an enumerated list of the AI-specific risk classes the documents address (including prompt injection and indirect prompt injection, data poisoning, model inversion, membership inference, training-data and retrieval leakage, unsafe tool use, and provenance failure).
- The governance rule-pack (opens in a new tab), now migrating to the standalone AIQT Guardrails™ pack (jposluns/guardrails (opens in a new tab)), documents the disciplines an AI assistant follows when contributing to the corpus (evidence-grounded completion, gate discipline, change tracking, project integrity), and the AI coding-assistant security guideline (opens in a new tab) documents secure practice for AI development assistants.
Obligations
The obligations this corpus documents
AI systems, and the organizations that develop and deploy them, are subject to a growing body of law, regulation, and standards. These range from comprehensive statutes such as the European Union's AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), through use-specific laws such as Colorado's AI and automated-decision-making statutes and New York City's Local Law 144 on automated employment decision tools, to binding public-sector directives such as Canada's Treasury Board Directive on Automated Decision-Making, transparency obligations added to existing privacy law such as Australia's Privacy Act amendments, and voluntary frameworks and standards such as ISO/IEC 42001:2023, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and the OECD Recommendation on AI.
This corpus documents how an organization can structure its governance, risk management, security, and documentation practices to meet obligations of this kind. Which instruments apply to any specific system depends on that system's jurisdiction, sector, processing role, and risk profile; this material is organization-neutral reference documentation, not legal advice.
The index below groups the instruments this corpus engages. Each linked entry points to where the corpus documents that instrument. Instruments named without a link are authoritative sources this corpus does not yet give dedicated coverage, listed so the map shows them rather than silently omitting them.
Resources
Resource index
AI governance and risk frameworks
- ISO/IEC 42001:2023, AI management system. Documented in the AI governance and risk framework (opens in a new tab).
- ISO/IEC 23894:2023, AI risk-management guidance. Documented in the AI model-risk framework (opens in a new tab).
- ISO/IEC 42005:2025, AI system impact assessment. Documented in the AI system impact-assessment procedure (opens in a new tab).
- NIST AI 100-1, AI Risk Management Framework 1.0. Documented in the AI governance and risk framework (opens in a new tab).
- NIST AI 600-1, Generative AI Profile. Documented in the AI compliance policy (opens in a new tab).
- OECD Recommendation on AI (OECD/LEGAL/0449). Cited in the canonical citations register (opens in a new tab).
- UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI (adopted 23 November 2021). Cited in the canonical citations register (opens in a new tab).
- G7 Hiroshima Process International Code of Conduct (30 October 2023). Cited in the canonical citations register (opens in a new tab).
- Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI (CETS No. 225). Cited in the canonical citations register (opens in a new tab).
Named, not yet given dedicated coverage here: ISO/IEC 38507:2022 (governance implications of AI use) and ISO/IEC 22989:2022 (AI concepts and terminology).
AI security
- OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2026. Documented in the AI security and risk standard (opens in a new tab).
- OWASP MCP Top 10. Documented in the AI and agentic development-security standard (opens in a new tab).
- OWASP GenAI Red Teaming Guide. Documented in the AI and agentic development-security standard (opens in a new tab).
- MITRE ATLAS, adversarial threat landscape for AI systems. Engaged in the adversarial-test reference (opens in a new tab) and the AI security tooling landscape (opens in a new tab).
- NIST AI 100-2e2025, Adversarial Machine Learning taxonomy. Documented in the adversarial-test reference (opens in a new tab).
- NIST SP 800-218A, Secure Software Development for Generative AI. Documented in the AI and agentic development-security standard (opens in a new tab).
- NIST AI 100-4, Reducing Risks Posed by Synthetic Content. Documented in the synthetic-content provenance guideline (opens in a new tab).
- CSA AI Controls Matrix (AICM). Mapped in the compliance matrix (opens in a new tab).
Named, not yet given dedicated coverage here: ETSI EN 304 223 (baseline cyber-security requirements for AI models and systems).
AI-specific legislation by jurisdiction
- European Union, AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, as amended by (EU) 2026/1744), in force and phasing in. Documented in the EU AI annex (opens in a new tab) (which also reflects the in-force Digital Omnibus on AI, Regulation (EU) 2026/1744).
- United States, Colorado, AI Act (SB24-205) and its automated-decision-making re-enactment (SB26-189). Documented in the Colorado AI annex (opens in a new tab).
- United States, New York City, Local Law 144 on automated employment decision tools. Documented in the NYC AI annex (opens in a new tab).
- United States, California, CCPA regulations on automated decision-making technology (11 CCR Article 11, sections 7200 to 7222). Documented in the California ADMT annex (opens in a new tab).
- Canada, Treasury Board Directive on Automated Decision-Making (in force) and provincial and sectoral instruments. Documented in the Canada AI annex (opens in a new tab).
- Australia, Privacy Act automated-decision transparency amendments (commencing 2026) and the Voluntary AI Safety Standard. Documented in the Australia AI annex (opens in a new tab).
- Singapore, Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI (advisory, not legislation). Documented in the Singapore AI annex (opens in a new tab).
- Malaysia, National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (MOSTI, 2024; voluntary, seven principles). Documented in the Malaysia AI annex (opens in a new tab).
- United Kingdom, pro-innovation AI regulation framework (CP 815 white paper, 2023, and CP 1019 government response, 2024; non-statutory, five principles applied by existing regulators). Documented in the United Kingdom AI annex (opens in a new tab).
- South Korea, Framework Act on AI (AI Basic Act, Law No. 20676, in force 22 January 2026). Documented in the South Korea AI annex (opens in a new tab).
- United States, Illinois, AI in employment (HB 3773 / Public Act 103-0804), effective 1 January 2026. Documented in the Illinois AI annex (opens in a new tab).
- United States, Texas, Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA, HB 149), effective 1 January 2026. Documented in the Texas AI annex (opens in a new tab).
- United States, federal, OMB memoranda M-25-21 (agency use of AI), M-25-22 (AI acquisition), and M-26-04 (Unbiased AI Principles for procured LLMs), binding on federal agencies and reaching vendors through contract terms. Documented in the US federal AI annex (opens in a new tab).
Named, not yet given dedicated AI-annex coverage here (each a non-binding framework, guideline, or strategy; verify current status against the primary source): the African Union Continental AI Strategy.
AI data quality, documentation, and transparency
- ISO/IEC 5259 series, data quality for analytics and machine learning. Documented in the AI data-quality and readiness standard (opens in a new tab).
- Model Cards, from the 2019 research paper that introduced the practice. Adapted as the corpus model-card template (opens in a new tab).
- Datasheets for Datasets, from the 2018 research paper that introduced it. Adapted as the corpus dataset-datasheet template (opens in a new tab).
Named, not yet given dedicated coverage here: ISO/IEC 8183:2023 (AI data life cycle), ISO/IEC 12792:2025 (AI transparency taxonomy), ISO/IEC 5338:2023 (AI system life-cycle processes), NIST SP 1270 (managing bias in AI), and NIST IR 8312 (explainable AI).
Foundational security, privacy, and risk standards
- ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and 27002:2022, information-security management and controls. Both are documented in the information-security policy (opens in a new tab); ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is mapped in the compliance matrix.
- NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5. NIST CSF 2.0 is mapped in the compliance matrix (opens in a new tab); selected NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 control families are mapped in the reverse framework-control crosswalk (opens in a new tab).
- ISO 31000:2018, risk management. Engaged across the risk domain and the cross-framework matrix (opens in a new tab).
- ISO/IEC 27701:2025 and the GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), privacy management and data protection. ISO/IEC 27701:2025 is documented in the privacy programme charter (opens in a new tab) and the privacy and data governance policy (opens in a new tab); the GDPR is documented in the EU privacy annex (opens in a new tab).
- CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM). Mapped in the compliance matrix (opens in a new tab).
Licence
Licence and reuse
The library's original content is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (opens in a new tab) licence (CC BY-SA 4.0); vendored third-party material and quotations keep their own licences, as the repository's NOTICE records. The original content may be read, quoted, adapted, and used as training data, including for AI systems. When you share it or an adaptation, give attribution and indicate any changes. If you share an adaptation, license your own contributions to it under CC BY-SA 4.0, a later CC BY-SA version, or a BY-SA-compatible licence; the library's original content stays under CC BY-SA 4.0. When you share, crediting "the GRC Library" with a link to the repository (opens in a new tab), whose LICENSE (opens in a new tab) and NOTICE (opens in a new tab) carry the full terms and notices, and indicating any changes can meet the attribution requirement.