Control mapping: ISO/IEC 42001 and NIST AI RMF

“The risk management process and its outcomes are established through transparent policies, procedures, and other controls based on organizational risk priorities.”

Each gate is a transparent control with a named-signer requirement, and the receipt records the policy version that governed each gated action. The risk management process around the gates is yours.

“Ongoing monitoring and periodic review of the risk management process and its outcomes are planned and organizational roles and responsibilities clearly defined, including determining the frequency of periodic review.”

Receipts give the periodic review a concrete input: which gated actions cleared, which held, which were denied, and who decided, per gate. Planning the review and setting its frequency is yours.

“Mechanisms are in place to inventory AI systems and are resourced according to organizational risk priorities.”

Permission Protocol keeps no inventory of agents or AI systems. Receipts carry an agent ID; an agent registry or your identity provider is where that ID resolves to an owner. Bring your registry.

“Policies and procedures are in place to define and differentiate roles and responsibilities for human-AI configurations and oversight of AI systems.”

Scoped to gated actions. The gate is the human-AI configuration: policy clears the routine, a named human signs the consequential slice, and the receipt binds which class of decider resolved each gated action (policy engine, human, founder). Roles outside the gate remain your policy's job.

“Organizational practices are in place to enable AI testing, identification of incidents, and information sharing.”

Narrowly. A signed DENY receipt records that a gated action was blocked, by which rule or kill switch, at what time: an incident-identification input and nothing more. Testing practices and information sharing are yours.

“Processes for human oversight are defined, assessed, and documented in accordance with organizational policies from the GOVERN function.”

Scoped to gated actions. The gate is a defined, enforced human-oversight process: the action holds until a named human signs or policy clears it, and the receipt documents the outcome. Whether your gates match your GOVERN policies is an assessment you make.

“Risks associated with transparency and accountability – as identified in the MAP function – are examined and documented.”

Receipts document accountability per gated action: who decided, under which policy version, with the decider bound inside the signature. Examining the transparency and accountability risks themselves is your risk function's work.

“Mechanisms are in place and applied, and responsibilities are assigned and understood, to supersede, disengage, or deactivate AI systems that demonstrate performance or outcomes inconsistent with intended use.”

Scoped to actions routed through Permission Protocol. Global freeze, agent pause and capability pause are checked at the live choke point before any policy evaluation. A hit denies the next gated action, fail-closed, and issues a signed DENY receipt. It stops agency through the gate, not the agent process; actions that never route through Permission Protocol are not covered.

“Post-deployment AI system monitoring plans are implemented, including mechanisms for capturing and evaluating input from users and other relevant AI actors, appeal and override, decommissioning, incident response, recovery, and change management.”

Signed approve and deny receipts are the change-management and override record for gated actions after deployment. Monitoring plans, appeal, decommissioning and recovery are yours.