Define the use case
Name the intended users, workflow, decision impact, data categories, integrations, and business owner. A vendor cannot be assessed meaningfully in the abstract.
Assessment workflow
Build an evidence-linked AI vendor risk assessment
Review one vendor for one defined use case. Keep source material, interpretations, open questions, and the final decision distinct.
What an AI vendor risk assessment should record
An AI vendor risk assessment is a use-case-specific review of relevant claims, evidence, findings, gaps, controls, and ownership. The goal is a record that another reviewer can examine—not a universal score or automatic pass/fail result.
- Intended roles:
- The business owner, decision owner, and participating security, privacy, legal, procurement, compliance, risk, accessibility, finance, or AI-governance reviewers.
- Use it when:
- A specific AI vendor is being considered for a defined workflow, or when a material change requires reassessment.
- Inputs:
- Use-case scope, users and affected people, data categories, integrations, decision impact, internal requirements, vendor claims, supporting materials, and known unknowns.
- Outputs:
- Review scope, evidence register, bounded findings, open gaps, proposed conditions, follow-up owners, and a recommendation with rationale.
- Boundary:
- The workflow does not certify a vendor, prove compliance or security, guarantee an outcome, or replace qualified specialist review.
About this resource
AI Vendor Decision publishes static informational resources for structuring an internal vendor review. The site does not receive documents, assess vendors, provide professional advice, or make approval decisions. Check each resource against your current use case, evidence, policies, contracts, and applicable requirements.
Six-step workflow
Set the review scope
Choose review depth based on the use case, not brand familiarity. Record why each review area is included, narrowed, or deferred.
Request relevant evidence
Ask questions that fit the proposed use. Seek policies, technical descriptions, contract terms, test summaries, and other materials appropriate to the risk.
Build an evidence register
For each item, record its source, date if available, scope, reviewer, and the claim it supports. Do not treat an assertion as proof merely because it is written down.
Record findings and gaps
Separate observed facts from interpretation. Mark missing, stale, ambiguous, or out-of-scope evidence and note any proposed controls or conditions.
Prepare a human-owned decision
Summarize the use case, evidence, material concerns, dependencies, and recommendation. Identify who can accept residual risk and who will monitor conditions.
Useful outputs
A reviewable assessment record
- Decision scope and named owner
- Evidence register with source links or references
- Findings separated from assumptions
- Open gaps and follow-up owners
- Conditions, controls, and review triggers
- Recommendation with rationale
Assessment boundary
This workflow does not certify a vendor, prove compliance, establish security, or guarantee an outcome. Missing evidence remains missing, and consequential decisions may require legal, security, privacy, procurement, or other specialist review.
Frequently asked questions
What is an AI vendor risk assessment?
It is a structured review of one vendor for one defined use case. It connects relevant claims and evidence to findings, open gaps, controls, owners, and a human-owned decision.
What inputs should reviewers gather?
Gather the proposed use, intended users, data and integrations, decision impact, internal requirements, vendor claims, relevant supporting materials, and any missing or ambiguous information. The required depth depends on the use case.
Does this workflow certify that a vendor is safe or compliant?
No. It does not certify a vendor, establish security or compliance, or guarantee approval. Missing evidence remains missing, and consequential decisions may require qualified specialists.