Skip to main content

AI/ML Compliance Challenges

Traditional Traceability Assumptions​

Existing compliance standards and traceability approaches were designed with deterministic systems in mind:

Deterministic Behavior Assumption​

  • Traditional systems: Input → Processing → Predictable Output
  • Requirements define specific behaviors for specific inputs
  • Verification through exhaustive testing of defined scenarios

Requirements-Based Development​

  • Functional requirements specify what the system must do
  • Non-functional requirements define performance, safety, security constraints
  • Implementation traces directly to requirements
  • Test cases verify requirement implementation

Static Verification Methods​

  • Code analysis can verify algorithm implementation
  • Model checking proves properties mathematically
  • Formal verification establishes correctness bounds

AI/ML System Characteristics​

Machine learning systems introduce fundamentally different characteristics:

Probabilistic Behavior​

  • Neural networks produce probability distributions, not deterministic outputs
  • Same input may yield different outputs based on model state
  • Behavior emerges from training data patterns rather than explicit programming

Data-Driven Development​

  • Training datasets serve as implicit "requirements"
  • Model performance depends on data quality, quantity, and representativeness
  • Data preprocessing and augmentation affect system behavior
  • Validation data determines acceptable performance thresholds

Statistical Validation​

  • Performance measured through metrics (accuracy, precision, recall)
  • Validation on test datasets that may not cover all real-world scenarios
  • Edge cases discovered through empirical testing rather than formal analysis

Compliance Standard Challenges​

ISO 26262 (Functional Safety)​

Traditional ISO 26262 requires:

  • Systematic hazard analysis and risk assessment
  • Requirements traceability through V-model development
  • Software unit verification and integration testing
  • Demonstration of freedom from interference

AI/ML challenges:

  • How to define safety requirements for probabilistic systems?
  • What constitutes "systematic fault" in neural network weights?
  • How to verify software units when behavior emerges from training?
  • How to demonstrate systematic capability with statistical validation?

UN-R155/156 (Cybersecurity)​

Traditional cybersecurity assumes:

  • Known attack vectors and mitigation strategies
  • Deterministic security controls and access mechanisms
  • Systematic vulnerability assessment methods

AI/ML introduces:

  • Adversarial attacks specific to machine learning models
  • Data poisoning during training phase
  • Model extraction and membership inference attacks
  • Uncertainty about attack surfaces in learned representations

FDA 21 CFR Part 820 (Medical Devices)​

Medical device regulations require:

  • Design controls with documented requirements
  • Verification and validation protocols
  • Risk management throughout device lifecycle
  • Change control for software modifications

AI/ML complications:

  • Continuous learning models that change behavior over time
  • Black-box decision making in diagnostic applications
  • Bias detection and mitigation in healthcare algorithms
  • Explainability requirements for clinical decision support

Evidence Aggregation Problems​

Multi-Tool Development Environments​

AI/ML development typically involves:

  • Data management platforms (MLflow, Weights & Biases)
  • Training frameworks (TensorFlow, PyTorch)
  • Experiment tracking systems
  • Version control for code, data, and models
  • Deployment and monitoring platforms

Evidence scatter:

  • Training logs in experiment tracking systems
  • Data lineage in data management platforms
  • Model performance metrics in separate dashboards
  • Code changes in version control systems
  • Deployment logs in operational systems

Manual Evidence Compilation​

Current practice for compliance requires:

  • Export data from multiple systems
  • Manual correlation of artifacts across tools
  • Creation of documents and presentations for auditors
  • Maintenance of traceability matrices in spreadsheets

Time and error factors:

  • Weeks of manual effort for audit preparation
  • High risk of missing or inconsistent evidence
  • Difficulty maintaining currency as models evolve
  • Limited ability to analyze trends across model versions

Current Industry Approaches​

Documentation-Heavy Processes​

Many organizations attempt compliance through:

  • Extensive documentation of development processes
  • Manual traceability matrices linking artifacts
  • Periodic snapshots of model performance
  • Ad hoc collection of evidence for specific assessments

Limitations:

  • Documentation often lags behind actual development
  • Static snapshots miss dynamic model behavior
  • Manual processes prone to errors and omissions
  • Difficult to scale across multiple model deployments

Tool-Specific Solutions​

Some organizations build internal tools:

  • Custom databases for artifact storage
  • Proprietary formats for evidence packaging
  • Organization-specific compliance dashboards

Problems:

  • High development and maintenance costs
  • Limited interoperability with external tools
  • Difficulty sharing evidence with suppliers or customers
  • Vendor lock-in and migration challenges

The Need for Structured Approaches​

The combination of AI/ML system characteristics and compliance requirements creates a need for:

Systematic Evidence Collection​

  • Automated capture of training data lineage
  • Systematic recording of model performance metrics
  • Structured documentation of design decisions
  • Consistent artifact identification and versioning

Cross-Tool Integration​

  • Standard formats for evidence exchange
  • APIs for automated evidence extraction
  • Common schemas for artifact relationships
  • Interoperable validation mechanisms

Scalable Compliance Processes​

  • Templates for common compliance scenarios
  • Automated gap analysis and coverage reporting
  • Version control integration for evidence packages
  • Support for multi-organizational evidence sharing

This systematic approach to AI/ML compliance evidence forms the foundation for TRF's technical approach to structured traceability data.