AIGP Exam Dumps - Artificial Intelligence Governance Professional

The planning phase of the AI life cycle typically includes defining the objective of the model, choosing the appropriate architecture, and understanding the context in which the model will operate. However, the approach to governance is usually established as part of the overall AI governance framework, not specifically within the planning phase. Governance encompasses broader organizational policies and procedures that ensure AI development and deployment align with legal, ethical, and operational standards. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge, AI lifecycle planning phase section.

The White House Executive Order of November 2023 designates the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as the responsible body for creating guidelines to conduct red-teaming tests of AI systems. NIST is tasked with developing and providing standards and frameworks to ensure the security, reliability, and ethical deployment of AI systems, including conducting rigorous red-teaming exercises to identify vulnerabilities and assess risks in AI systems.

The most critical reason for documenting AI-related risks is toreduce exposure to legal, regulatory, and reputational liabilities. Clear documentation demonstrates thatrisks were identified, assessed, and addressed, which is essential for accountability and defensibility in the face of audits, litigation, or enforcement actions.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“An effective AI governance model is about collective responsibility… which should encompass oversight mechanisms such as privacy, accountability, compliance.” (p. 13)

“Accountability… is based on the idea that there should be a person or entity that is ultimately responsible for any harm resulting from the use of the data, algorithm and AI system's underlying processes.” (p. 28)

While transparency, alignment with standards, and knowledge sharing are all secondary benefits,risk documentation’s primary role is liability mitigation.

In the machine learning context, feature engineering is the process of extracting attributes and variables from raw data to make it suitable for training an AI model. This step is crucial as it transforms raw data into meaningful features that can improve the model's accuracy and performance. Feature engineering involves selecting, modifying, and creating new features that help the model learn more effectively. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on AI Model Development and Feature Engineering.

The third-party consultant asked each vendor for information about the diversity of their datasets to assist in ensuring the fairness of the AI system. Diverse datasets help prevent biases and ensure that the AI system performs equitably across different demographic groups. This is crucial for a law enforcement application, where fairness and avoiding discriminatory practices are of paramount importance. Ensuring diversity in training data helps in building a more just and unbiased AI system. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Ethical AI and Fairness.

Business A is integrating a generative AI model licensed from a third party (Business B) and is primarily concerned with the risk of toxic or obscene outputs being delivered to users. In this scenario,testing and validationof the AI model for such content risks is the most direct and effective governance strategy.

According to theAI Governance in Practice Report2025, organizations thatdeployAI must engage inperformance monitoring protocolsand ensure systems perform adequately for theirintended purposes, including filtering harmful content:

“Operational governance… development of: →Performance monitoring protocols to ensure systems perform adequately for their intended purposes.” (p. 12)

“Product governance... includes: →System impact assessments to identify and address risk prior to product development or deployment.” (p. 11)

Furthermore, under theEU AI Act, which sets the global standard many organizations aim to align with, there is a clear obligation to test and monitor systems for potential harmful behavior:

“The act imposes regulatory obligations… such as establishing appropriate accountability structures,assessing system impact, providing technical documentation,establishing risk management protocols and monitoring performance...” (p. 7)

Option B directly reflects this best practice ofpre-deployment testing and validationto ensure that the model aligns with Business A’s minimum content safety requirements.

Let’s now evaluate the incorrect options:

A. Fine-tuning on verified user-generated textmay improve model alignment but does not guarantee that the model will generalize correctly, especially if Business A lacks access to model internals (common in third-party licensing scenarios). Fine-tuning also introduces its own risks and may be contractually restricted.

C. A user reporting featureisreactive, not preventive. While helpful for long-term monitoring and mitigation, it does not prevent the initial harm of toxic outputs, which isBusiness A's primary concern.

D. Requesting documentation from Business Bis useful for transparency and risk management, but it does not replaceindependent verificationthat the model meets Business A’s content safety standards.

Thus,testing the model's behavior for unacceptable outputs before deploymentis the most aligned approach with AI governance best practices and obligations.

Under theEU AI Act, serious incidents involvinghigh-risk AI systemsmust be reported. The deployer is required topromptly inform the provider and relevant authoritiesabout the issue.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“Serious incidents involving high-risk systems… must be reported to the provider and relevant market surveillance authority.” (p. 35)

“Timely reporting is required when AI systems result in or may result in violations of fundamental rights.” (p. 35)

The White House Executive Order from November 2023 requires companies developing dual-use foundation models to report on their current training or development activities, the results of red-team testing, and the physical and cybersecurity protection measures. However, it does not mandate reports on environmental impact studies for each dual-use foundation model. While environmental considerations are important, they are not specified in this context as a reporting requirement under this Executive Order.