A Practitioner’s Reference: Every AskAjay Framework Mapped to Specific NIST Subcategories
Each cell shows the specific NIST subcategories addressed by the framework.
| Framework | GOVERN | MAP | MEASURE | MANAGE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MVG | GV-1.1 GV-1.2 GV-1.3 GV-1.6 GV-2.1 GV-2.3 GV-5 GV-6 | MAP-1 MAP-2 | MS-3 MS-4 | MG-2 MG-3 MG-4 |
| PRIME (5-Pillar) | GV-1 GV-2 GV-3 GV-4 | MAP-1 MAP-2 MAP-3 MAP-4 | — | — |
| Trust Premium | GV-1.5 | — | MS-1 MS-2 MS-4 | — |
| Liability Ledger | GV-1.4 | MAP-1 MAP-5 | MS-3 | MG-1 MG-2 |
| A7 Framework | GV-1 GV-2 GV-3 GV-4 GV-5 GV-6 | MAP-1 MAP-3 MAP-4 | MS-1 MS-2 MS-3 | MG-1 MG-2 MG-4 |
Every MVG artifact maps directly to NIST subcategories and matures in place toward full compliance.
| MVG Artifact | NIST Subcategories | What It Produces | Maturity Path |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI System Inventory | GV-1.6 | List of all AI systems, owners, use cases, data sources | Matures into comprehensive AI-BOM with data lineage and model cards |
| Risk Classification | MAP-1 MAP-2 | 3-tier risk register (High / Medium / Low) with top-3 failure modes per system | Matures into full MAP with quantitative impact analysis and MAP-5 community impact |
| Use Case Approval | GV-1.3 | Risk-tolerance-based go/no-go decisions per use case | Matures into formal risk appetite framework with board-level risk tolerances |
| Governance Charter | GV-1.1 GV-1.2 | Organizational AI governance policy, legal requirements map, trustworthy AI commitments | Matures into comprehensive policy library covering all GV-1 subcategories |
| Accountability Matrix | GV-2.1 GV-2.3 | Named owners per AI system, executive risk tolerance declarations | Matures into full RACI with training requirements (GV-2.2) and escalation authority |
| Monitoring Baselines | MS-3 MS-4 | Performance baselines, drift thresholds, feedback collection mechanisms | Matures into automated continuous monitoring with quantitative metrics (MS-1, MS-2) |
| Escalation Paths | MG-2 MG-4 | Human escalation procedures, kill switches, incident notification paths | Matures into full incident response with remediation (MG-1, MG-3) and post-incident review |
| Stakeholder Engagement | GV-5 | Identified internal and external stakeholders for AI governance decisions | Matures into formal stakeholder programs with feedback loops |
| Third-Party Risk Review | GV-6 MG-3 | Vendor AI risk inventory, supply chain risk register | Matures into vendor assessment framework with AI-BOM for supply chain |
NIST defines seven characteristics of trustworthy AI. Below shows which AskAjay frameworks provide coverage for each.
Consistent, accurate results as intended
PRIME Trust Premium MVGMinimized risks of harm from outputs and operations
MVG A7 Liability LedgerProtected against cyber threats, maintains functionality
A7 MVGClear responsibility and visibility into operations
MVG Liability Ledger A7Decisions understandable to stakeholders
Trust Premium PRIMEIndividual privacy protected throughout lifecycle
MVG A7Equitable treatment, mitigated discriminatory outcomes
Trust Premium Liability Ledger MVG| Phase | Timeline | Deliverables | NIST Coverage | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MVG Sprint | Days 1–90 | AI inventory, risk register, accountability matrix, monitoring baselines, escalation paths | GOVERN + MAP foundations; partial MEASURE and MANAGE | Organizational time only |
| Progressive NIST | Months 4–12 | Full AI-BOM, quantitative risk assessment, training programs, stakeholder programs, automated monitoring | Full MAP + MEASURE + MANAGE; expanded GOVERN | Governance hire or fractional resource |
| Certification Ready | Months 12–18 | ISO 42001 artifact mapping, third-party assessment, formal certification | Complete NIST coverage + ISO 42001 mapping | $50K–$100K for certification |
| Standard / Regulation | NIST Overlap | Key Gaps After NIST | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | 60–70% | Conformity assessments, CE marking, 72-hr incident reporting, prohibited practices list, explicit penalties | GLACIS crosswalk guide; EC Council comparison |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | Official crosswalk | Clause-based AIMS structure, management system requirements, certification audit specifics | NIST official crosswalk (NIST AI RMF to ISO/IEC 42001) |
| Colorado SB 205 | Safe harbor | Colorado-specific disclosure requirements, operative June 30, 2026 | Gibson Dunn analysis; Baker Botts implementation guide |
| Federal Procurement | Referenced | Agency-specific requirements, FedRAMP-like AI assessments (emerging) | NIST AI RMF homepage; Astraea Law analysis |
| AI Insurance | 73% require | Insurer-specific questionnaires, third-party assessment requirements | Knostic AI Governance Statistics 2025 |