Enterprise AI Impact Assessment Playbook
One Control Map, Coverage Across U.S. and International Expectations
The problem
You already have ISO 27001 and SOC 2. You don't want to rebuild it for AI.
Your assurance and GRC teams are already juggling overlapping frameworks. Now the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, and ISO/IEC 42001 each add their own AI assessment and governance obligations on top. The instinct to stand up an entirely separate AI control set duplicates governance infrastructure you already run and maintain. The harder, more defensible move is to reuse what exists, then close only the gaps that are genuinely net-new to AI.
GET THE PLAYBOOK
Get instant access to the playbook
Extend, don't rebuild
You reuse the ISO 27001 and SOC 2 controls already in place and add only the AI-specific controls that fill a real gap.
Audit coverage in both directions
Mapping to NIST AI RMF and ISO/IEC 42001 together gives you coverage across U.S. regulatory expectations and international standards at the same time.
Defensible classification decisions
Every tier and control decision carries a scoring rubric, rationale note, named reviewer, and review date that can survive regulatory scrutiny.
Findings that don't age into liability
A composite priority score sequences remediation, and named owners plus retest dates keep open findings moving to closure.
No. The playbook shows how to formally extend controls like SOC 2 CC6.6, CC6.1, and CC9.2 in scope to cover the AI system, then add AI-specific controls only where existing coverage falls short.
No. NIST provides function-based risk management actions and ISO 42001 provides a certifiable management system structure. Mapping to both is what creates coverage across U.S. and international expectations simultaneously.
Control mapping is one of eight chapters. The full document covers the lifecycle: use case intake, risk tiering, running the assessment, the Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment, control mapping, prioritization and remediation, and operationalizing at scale.
No. The playbook is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, compliance, or professional advice. Requirements vary by jurisdiction and use case, so confirm applicability against your own deployer classification.
It treats vendor dependencies as a distinct risk domain, with AI-specific vendor due diligence, documentation of model reliance in the risk register, and gaps in vendor transparency flagged as residual risk for compensating controls.
ONE CONTROL MAP. TWO STANDARDS. ZERO REBUILD.