AI scoping records
Where does AI support your institution?
Start with the places AI may already support work, including features inside software your institution owns.
What examiners look for
The Work Program asks examiners to look beyond formal models and public applications. Operations, compliance, fraud, service channels and staff support can all matter. A feature may use AI even when its product name never mentions AI. A list limited to approved chat tools can therefore miss useful context.
CSBS Examiner Work Program, initial scoping 1. Checked October 16, 2026.
Which records answer the question
- Keep the AI inventory alongside the business areas reviewed.
- Retain the vendor-product list, including possible embedded features.
- Link recent changes to the product and business owner.
- Use staff guidance to distinguish approved tools from tools found during interviews.
Where the answer directs review
A Yes can point examiners toward Governance and Oversight, plus AI Inventory and Use Cases. A No or unclear answer may prompt a cross-check. The guide names vendor lists, software lists, approved tools and recent platform changes. Explain the checks made before reaching a conclusion about use.
Core Examiner Guide, page 3. Checked October 16, 2026.
Two gaps to check
The software list names products, but nobody checked their AI features. Ask product owners what changed and request feature-specific records. Keep unknown capabilities open instead of assuming an older purchase contains no AI.
Staff say AI is absent because no chatbot was bought. Ask about drafting, fraud review, analytics and internal support. Record the areas checked and the limits of that work before closing the inventory question.
How to prepare the record
Choose the business areas covered by the review. Ask each owner about current tools, new releases and informal use. Keep the date, role and material behind each answer. An interview gives a starting point; product records may confirm or challenge it. Separate a tool found during the review from a use that the institution has accepted.
A row behind the question
Illustrative inputs, not a client.
| Use | Where it runs | Data it can touch | Owner | Evidence on hand | Question still open |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature inside an existing product | Vendor service | Not yet identified | Product owner role not assigned | Product proposal | Does the feature use AI, and is the feature active? |
What the reviewer should retain
The useful result is a bounded coverage record. It shows where the institution looked, what was found and what still needs checking. Keep areas outside that scope visible. A later product release can reopen the question even if an earlier review found no AI.
Prepare the next step
Continue with the inventory question to turn findings into a usable register.