ISO/IEC 42005
Gamut supports AI system impact assessment aligned to ISO/IEC 42005:2025. The module provides 119 atomic assessment items covering the assessment process, its documentation and the analysis and treatment of actual and reasonably foreseeable impacts.
The central question is:
For this selected AI system, its intended and foreseeable uses, affected parties and operating context, what benefits and harms may arise, how were they evaluated, and what measures and accountable decisions follow?
Start here
Section titled “Start here”| If you need to… | Read |
|---|---|
| Understand system scope, the process and 119-item catalogue | Scope, process and catalogue |
| Complete an assessment end to end | Assessment workflow |
| Explain maturity, assurance and approved N/A | Maturity, assurance and applicability |
| Gather evidence and engage affected parties | Evidence, engagement and findings |
| Use per-item and whole-system AI assistance | AI Assist and security |
| Report and maintain the impact assessment | Reporting and reassessment |
| Look up labels and safe explanatory language | Reference and glossary |
At a glance
Section titled “At a glance”| Property | Gamut assessment |
|---|---|
| Standard | ISO/IEC 42005:2025, edition 1 |
| Nature | Guidance for AI system impact assessment |
| Scope | One selected AI system, version and use context |
| Structure | Clauses 5 and 6 represented in five sections |
| Atomic items | 119 |
| Maturity | 1 Not Addressed to 5 Optimised |
| Assurance depth | Unverified, Documented, Implemented, Assured |
| Applicability | In-scope by default; N/A requires structured human approval |
| Evidence boundary | Selected system, affected parties, context and assessment period |
| AI support | Per-item and complete-system advisory analysis |
| Accountability | Human assessor owns scope, engagement, impact, treatment and conclusion |
The five sections
Section titled “The five sections”| Section | Items | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Process Foundation | 18 | Establish and document a repeatable, integrated impact-assessment process |
| Governance & Triggers | 25 | Timing, scope, responsibilities and thresholds for sensitive or restricted uses |
| Execution & Review | 25 | Perform, analyse, record, approve, monitor and review assessments |
| Documentation Content | 29 | System, use, data, model, deployment and interested-party information |
| Impacts & Measures | 22 | Identify impacts and record measures addressing harms and benefits |
How Gamut operationalises the assessment
Section titled “How Gamut operationalises the assessment”Selected AI system and approved boundary → intended use, foreseeable misuse and affected parties → impact-assessment trigger, responsibility and thresholds → 119 atomic maturity and assurance decisions → evidence, stakeholder input, tests and findings → harms, benefits, measures and residual uncertainty → accountable system-level conclusion → monitoring and event-driven reassessmentWhat a defensible record contains
Section titled “What a defensible record contains”- Selected system, version, purpose and deployment environment.
- Organisational role, lifecycle stage and dependencies.
- Intended uses and reasonably foreseeable misuse.
- Directly and indirectly affected people, groups and society.
- Data, model, algorithm and deployment information.
- Stakeholder and affected-party engagement.
- Actual and foreseeable beneficial and adverse impacts.
- Severity, likelihood, distribution, reversibility and uncertainty.
- Measures, owners, residual impacts and decision thresholds.
- Objective evidence, testing, findings and limitations.
- Approval, publication decision, monitoring and reassessment triggers.
What the assessment does not prove
Section titled “What the assessment does not prove”It does not by itself prove:
- That every affected party was identified.
- That stakeholder engagement occurred because a policy requires it.
- That legal impact assessments are complete.
- That a high maturity score means impacts are acceptable.
- That an item is irrelevant without an approved basis.
- That crosswalked evidence automatically satisfies the guidance.
- That AI-generated analysis is an approved impact conclusion.