System scope and GTSAF routing
ACRS is primarily assessed per AI system intake. System scope determines which facts, scores, evidence, tests, findings, conclusions and AI analysis belong to the active assessment.
The system boundary
Section titled “The system boundary”The selected intake links ACRS to:
- The system name and durable system identifier.
- Business purpose, owner and deployment context.
- Users and affected people.
- Data categories and retrieval sources.
- Autonomy and human oversight.
- Automated-decision and high-risk indicators.
- Public, community, cultural and heritage impact indicators.
- Regulatory and operational context.
The ACRS route is therefore a property of that named system in that recorded use context. It is not a reusable workspace-wide label.
The linked System Record and Intake also provide the authoritative cross-framework route. ACRS does not decide legal applicability. It provides a capability-risk basis for proportionate assurance after system scope is established.
What changes when another system is selected
Section titled “What changes when another system is selected”When the assessor switches systems:
- Automatic inference is recalculated from the new intake.
- Assessor overrides and rationales change to the new intake.
- The vector, product, floor rules and routed tier change.
- Evidence, requests, tests and findings are filtered to the new system scope.
- The structured conclusion changes.
- AI Assist displays analysis only for the selected system and current basis.
An analysis generated for System A remains stored under System A. It is not displayed as current for System B.
Route construction
Section titled “Route construction”The authoritative route records:
- Methodology version.
- Dimension vector.
- Raw product.
- Product tier.
- Routed tier.
- Severity-floor reasons.
- Confirmation state.
GTSAF is included as the universal framework baseline. Complete System Record and Intake facts determine individual-control applicability. The ACRS basis controls proportionate assurance depth; it does not mark an individual GTSAF control applicable or not applicable.
Cumulative assurance depth
Section titled “Cumulative assurance depth”The routed tier selects a cumulative control plan:
| ACRS route | Assurance depth |
|---|---|
| Low | Baseline: fundamental governance, data protection, identity and access management, basic testing, acceptable use and management review. |
| Medium | Baseline + Enhanced: adds deeper validation, monitoring, transparency, fairness where relevant, change control and AI incident response. |
| High | Baseline + Enhanced + Comprehensive: applies all relevant GTSAF controls in depth, with executive oversight, independent assessment, rigorous testing and continuous monitoring. |
Higher routes include the lower-tier requirements. “High” does not discard the baseline; it demands the complete relevant stack.
Dimension-to-control emphasis
Section titled “Dimension-to-control emphasis”The overall route determines depth, while the vector helps identify control areas needing particular attention:
| High dimension | Typical GTSAF emphasis |
|---|---|
| Dependency | Resilience, continuity, recovery, supplier substitution, safe degradation and service ownership. |
| Action autonomy | Agentic governance, policy enforcement, approvals, tool controls, kill switches, rollback and action logging. |
| Access scope | Identity, non-human identity, credentials, data protection, target-side authorisation, isolation, egress and monitoring. |
| Harm potential | Impact assessment, human oversight, transparency, safety, rights, redress, incident response and independent assurance. |
The route is a starting point for assurance depth. The assessor may require additional review when architecture, legal duties, incidents or professional judgement require it.
Confirmation and system selection
Section titled “Confirmation and system selection”A complete, conflict-free authoritative Intake route makes a system selectable for system-scoped GTSAF applicability. ACRS confirmation is a separate, audited sign-off over capability exposure and assurance depth; it is not the source of factual control exclusions.
Where ACRS is not confirmed, the system can still be assessed against its intake-derived GTSAF scope. The assessor should review ACRS before relying on the route for heightened depth, cadence or escalation.
Evidence and operational scope
Section titled “Evidence and operational scope”ACRS-linked operational records carry system linkage:
- Evidence.
- Evidence requests.
- Control tests.
- Findings.
The linkage includes the selected intake and the system name or identifier. An unlinked record is not silently treated as proof for the active system.
Where an enterprise artefact genuinely supports several systems, create or maintain an explicit relationship for every applicable system. Do not assume that workspace proximity proves applicability.
Routing does not grant access
Section titled “Routing does not grant access”ACRS route metadata does not change:
- The tenant’s plan.
- Framework entitlements.
- AI-analysis entitlements.
- Model entitlements.
- Workspace membership.
- Role permissions.
- Assessment edit rights.
- Quotas or rate limits.
A High route may say comprehensive GTSAF work is required, but it does not grant access to GTSAF or AI features beyond the organisation’s entitlement. Entitlement and role checks remain authoritative.
Route versus governance tier
Section titled “Route versus governance tier”Do not confuse:
- ACRS Low, Medium or High, which describes capability exposure and assurance depth.
- A separate organisational Critical governance label, which may exist in intake or portfolio processes.
- GTSAF Criticality, which describes the consequence of failure of an individual control.
- MAESTRO threat severity, which comes from likelihood × impact.
ACRS itself has no Critical band.
Route review triggers
Section titled “Route review triggers”Reassess ACRS when:
- Autonomy, tools, memory or delegation change.
- New write, execute, financial, identity or production permissions are granted.
- Data sensitivity, volume, source or destination changes.
- The system becomes public-facing or reaches a new population.
- A model, provider, integration or supplier changes.
- The workflow becomes operationally critical.
- Fallback, rollback or recovery capability degrades.
- A serious incident, near miss, failed test or control failure occurs.
- A legal, contractual or regulatory classification changes.
- The system purpose or affected decision changes.
The structured reassessment-trigger field should identify system-specific events rather than merely saying “review annually”.
Explaining the route to an auditor
Section titled “Explaining the route to an auditor”Use this statement:
ACRS is assessed for one named AI system. Gamut derives and validates four dimension levels, calculates the raw product, applies conservative severity floors and stores the authoritative routed tier. Complete System Record and Intake facts determine GTSAF control applicability; ACRS determines proportionate assurance depth. Evidence, tests, findings, conclusions and AI analysis remain bound to the same system. Routing does not change plan, framework, model or role entitlements.