| NIST AI RMF GOVERN-1.1 | ISO/IEC 42001 4.2 | A maintained register of applicable AI legal and regulatory requirements is the regulatory half of 4.2; identifying interested parties and their non-legal requirements remains. |
| NIST AI RMF GOVERN-1.6 | ISO/IEC 42001 4.3 | A current AI system inventory is the factual basis for scoping the AIMS, but the documented scope statement itself is ISO-specific. |
| NIST AI RMF GOVERN-1.4 | ISO/IEC 42001 4.4 | A documented, operating AI risk program is a major component of an AIMS but not the full management system with its interacting processes. |
| NIST AI RMF GOVERN-2.3 | ISO/IEC 42001 5.1 | Recorded executive accountability for AI deployment decisions evidences leadership commitment; ISO also requires resourcing and strategic alignment of the AIMS. |
| NIST AI RMF MAP-1.5 | ISO/IEC 42001 6.1.2 | Documented risk tolerances supply the risk-criteria input of the assessment process, not the process itself. |
| NIST AI RMF MAP-5.1 | ISO/IEC 42001 6.1.2 | Likelihood-and-magnitude analysis is the analysis step of the ISO process, which also requires criteria and consistent application. |
| NIST AI RMF MANAGE-1.3 | ISO/IEC 42001 6.1.3 | Both produce documented risk responses with owners and dates, but 6.1.3 also requires the Annex A control comparison and a Statement of Applicability. |
| NIST AI RMF MANAGE-1.2 | ISO/IEC 42001 6.1.3 | Written risk prioritization feeds treatment-option selection but is not the treatment plan or Statement of Applicability. |
| NIST AI RMF MAP-1.3 | ISO/IEC 42001 6.2 | Written AI goals tied to the mission feed ISO objectives, which must additionally be measurable with plans, owners, and completion dates. |
| NIST AI RMF MANAGE-2.1 | ISO/IEC 42001 7.1 | Accounting for the resources each system's risk management needs evidences part of resourcing the AIMS. |
| NIST AI RMF MAP-3.4 | ISO/IEC 42001 7.2 | Operator proficiency definitions and qualification records satisfy the competence requirement for operator roles specifically. |
| NIST AI RMF GOVERN-2.2 | ISO/IEC 42001 7.3 | Policy-and-responsibility training builds the required awareness, though ISO awareness extends to everyone working under the organization's control. |
| NIST AI RMF GOVERN-4.2 | ISO/IEC 42001 7.4 | Sharing AI risk documentation beyond the owning team is one strand of the communication plan ISO requires to be determined systematically. |
| NIST AI RMF GOVERN-1.4 | ISO/IEC 42001 8.1 | Written risk procedures and controls contribute to operational planning and control, which also covers change control of AIMS processes. |
| NIST AI RMF MEASURE-3.1 | ISO/IEC 42001 8.2 | A living risk register with owners and review dates evidences recurring assessment, but ISO requires full reassessments at planned intervals with retained results. |
| NIST AI RMF MANAGE-1.3 | ISO/IEC 42001 8.3 | Planned responses with owners and dates are the input 8.3 executes; ISO requires documented evidence that the treatment plan was implemented. |
| NIST AI RMF MAP-5.1 | ISO/IEC 42001 8.4 | Re-running the documented impact assessment covers the operational duty only when performed at planned intervals or on significant change, with retained results. |
| NIST AI RMF MEASURE-1.1 | ISO/IEC 42001 9.1 | Selected, documented metrics for significant AI risks supply part of the ISO determination of what to monitor, how, and by whom. |
| NIST AI RMF MEASURE-2.4 | ISO/IEC 42001 9.1 | Production monitoring of AI behavior is monitoring evidence, though 9.1 also covers measuring the management system itself. |
| NIST AI RMF MEASURE-1.3 | ISO/IEC 42001 9.2 | Independent assessors provide the objectivity internal audit needs, but a conformance audit against the standard's requirements is a distinct exercise. |
| NIST AI RMF GOVERN-1.5 | ISO/IEC 42001 9.3 | A scheduled, minuted review of the AI risk program covers much of the management-review agenda, but ISO requires top-management participation and prescribed inputs. |
| NIST AI RMF MANAGE-4.2 | ISO/IEC 42001 10.1 | Measurable improvement built into system updates evidences continual improvement of AI practice; ISO targets the management system itself. |
| NIST AI RMF MANAGE-2.3 | ISO/IEC 42001 10.2 | A defined respond-recover-and-learn procedure parallels corrective action, but ISO requires root-cause evaluation of management-system nonconformities with retained evidence. |
| NIST AI RMF GOVERN-2.1 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.3 | Both document AI roles and reporting lines, but A.3 additionally requires a concern-reporting mechanism that GOVERN-2.1 does not produce. |
| NIST AI RMF GOVERN-4.1 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.3 | A culture that rewards raising concerns supports the A.3 concern-reporting process but does not formalize it. |
| NIST AI RMF GOVERN-1.6 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.4 | An inventory recording each system's owner, purpose, and data touched starts the A.4 resource documentation, which also covers tooling, compute, and human competence. |
| NIST AI RMF MAP-1.1 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.6 | Documented purpose, context, assumptions, and limitations covers the requirements-definition and documentation slice of the life-cycle controls. |
| NIST AI RMF MAP-1.6 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.6 | Requirements elicited with socio-technical input feed the life-cycle objectives-and-requirements stage. |
| NIST AI RMF MEASURE-2.1 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.6 | Documented test sets, metrics, and TEVV tooling evidence the verification-and-validation stage of the life cycle. |
| NIST AI RMF MEASURE-2.4 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.6 | Production monitoring of system behavior evidences the operation-and-monitoring stage of the life cycle. |
| NIST AI RMF MAP-2.3 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.7 | Recorded data-collection, representativeness, and suitability considerations cover part of documented data-life-cycle management. |
| NIST AI RMF MAP-4.1 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.7 | A documented provenance and rights review of third-party data contributes to managed data acquisition. |
| NIST AI RMF MAP-2.2 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.8 | Documentation of knowledge limits and proper output use is core user information for interested parties. |
| NIST AI RMF MANAGE-4.3 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.8 | Documented incident communication to affected parties implements the A.8 incident-reporting expectation. |
| NIST AI RMF MEASURE-3.3 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.8 | User feedback and appeal channels are the communication channels for affected parties that A.8 expects. |
| NIST AI RMF MAP-3.3 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.9 | A documented application scope defining where the system must not be used underpins responsible-use-per-intended-purpose processes. |
| NIST AI RMF GOVERN-6.1 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.10 | Both cover supplier-side third-party policy and due diligence, but A.10 also requires customer-side responsibility allocation that GOVERN-6.1 does not produce. |
| NIST AI RMF MANAGE-3.1 | ISO/IEC 42001 A.10 | Ongoing monitoring and documented controls over third-party AI implement the supplier side of A.10; customer-side responsibility allocation remains. |
