Govern
   ↓
Identify
   ↓
Classify
   ↓
Assess
   ↓
Treat
   ↓
Approve
   ↓
Deploy
   ↓
Operate
   ↓
Monitor
   ↓
Assure
   ↓
Improve
   ↓
Change / Continue / Retire

Organizational Context
        ↓
AI Governance Planning
        ↓
AI Risk and Impact Management
        ↓
AI Lifecycle Operation
        ↓
Performance Evaluation
        ↓
Corrective Action
        ↓
Continual Improvement
        ↺

Lifecycle Stage
      ↓
Risk Identification
      ↓
Risk Analysis
      ↓
Risk Evaluation
      ↓
Risk Treatment
      ↓
Control Implementation
      ↓
Monitoring
      ↓
Residual Risk
      ↓
Reassessment

Lifecycle Stage
      ↓
Applicable Risk
      ↓
Applicable Control
      ↓
Control Owner
      ↓
Implementation
      ↓
Evidence
      ↓
Monitoring
      ↓
Assurance

Monitor
   ↓
Detect
   ↓
Evaluate
   ↓
Decide
   ↓
Act
   ↓
Verify
   ↓
Continue / Reassess / Change / Retire

Governance
    ↓
Identify
    ↓
Classify
    ↓
Assess Risk and Impact
    ↓
Select Controls
    ↓
Implement Controls
    ↓
Approve
    ↓
Deploy
    ↓
Operate
    ↓
Monitor
    ↓
Assess Controls
    ↓
Assure
    ↓
Improve
    ↓
Reassess
    ↺

Lifecycle Information
        ↓
Management Review
        ↓
Evaluate Governance Performance
        ↓
Evaluate Risk and Controls
        ↓
Evaluate Incidents and Assurance
        ↓
Identify Gaps and Opportunities
        ↓
Management Decision
        ↓
Action
        ↓
Verification
        ↓
Continual Improvement

Routine Management Review
        ↓
Periodic Review
        ↓
Annual Governance Review
        ↓
Triggered Review When Required
        ↓
Management Decision
        ↓
Corrective Action / Improvement

Finding
   ↓
Root Cause
   ↓
Risk
   ↓
Corrective Action
   ↓
Owner
   ↓
Implementation
   ↓
Verification
   ↓
Closure

AI System
   ↓
Lifecycle Stage
   ↓
Requirement
   ↓
Risk
   ↓
Control
   ↓
Evidence
   ↓
Decision
   ↓
Accountable Role

Security Event
      ↓
Incident Assessment
      ↓
Risk Assessment
      ↓
Containment
      ↓
Corrective Action
      ↓
Control Review
      ↓
Management Decision
      ↓
Resume / Change / Suspend / Retire

Regulatory Change
      ↓
Identify Applicability
      ↓
Assess Impact
      ↓
Identify Affected AI Systems
      ↓
Assess Risk
      ↓
Update Controls / Documentation
      ↓
Obtain Approval
      ↓
Implement
      ↓
Verify
      ↓
Monitor

Objectives
    ↓
Indicators
    ↓
Measurement
    ↓
Analysis
    ↓
Evaluation
    ↓
Management Decision
    ↓
Corrective Action / Improvement

Issue Identified
      ↓
Risk and Impact
      ↓
Urgency
      ↓
Governance Importance
      ↓
Resource Assessment
      ↓
Priority
      ↓
Improvement Action
      ↓
Verification

Initial
   ↓
Defined
   ↓
Implemented
   ↓
Managed
   ↓
Measured
   ↓
Optimized

Assess Maturity
      ↓
Identify Gaps
      ↓
Prioritize Improvements
      ↓
Implement Improvements
      ↓
Measure Results
      ↓
Reassess Maturity
      ↺

                    ┌──────────────────────┐
                    │      GOVERNANCE      │
                    └──────────┬───────────┘
                               ↓
                    ┌──────────────────────┐
                    │     IDENTIFY AI      │
                    └──────────┬───────────┘
                               ↓
                    ┌──────────────────────┐
                    │      CLASSIFY        │
                    └──────────┬───────────┘
                               ↓
                    ┌──────────────────────┐
                    │  RISK / IMPACT       │
                    │     ASSESSMENT       │
                    └──────────┬───────────┘
                               ↓
                    ┌──────────────────────┐
                    │ CONTROLS / TREATMENT │
                    └──────────┬───────────┘
                               ↓
                    ┌──────────────────────┐
                    │       APPROVE        │
                    └──────────┬───────────┘
                               ↓
                    ┌──────────────────────┐
                    │       DEPLOY         │
                    └──────────┬───────────┘
                               ↓
                    ┌──────────────────────┐
                    │       OPERATE        │
                    └──────────┬───────────┘
                               ↓
                    ┌──────────────────────┐
                    │       MONITOR        │
                    └──────────┬───────────┘
                               ↓
                    ┌──────────────────────┐
                    │      ASSURANCE       │
                    └──────────┬───────────┘
                               ↓
                    ┌──────────────────────┐
                    │     IMPROVEMENT      │
                    └──────────┬───────────┘
                               ↓
                    ┌──────────────────────┐
                    │ CHANGE / REASSESS    │
                    └──────────┬───────────┘
                               │
                               └──────────────↺

ISO/IEC 42001 Requirement
          ↓
AIGO Governance Domain
          ↓
AIGO Lifecycle Activity
          ↓
AIGO Risk / Control
          ↓
AIGO Procedure
          ↓
Implementation Evidence
          ↓
Monitoring / Assurance
          ↓
Management Review
          ↓
Corrective Action / Improvement

                    AIGO GOVERNANCE
                           ↓
                 Organizational Context
                           ↓
                    AI Portfolio
                           ↓
                  AI System Registration
                           ↓
                      Classification
                           ↓
                  Risk / Impact Assessment
                           ↓
                  Control Identification
                           ↓
                   Control Implementation
                           ↓
                        Approval
                           ↓
                       Deployment
                           ↓
                       Operation
                           ↓
                       Monitoring
                           ↓
                       Assurance
                           ↓
                 Performance Evaluation
                           ↓
                    Management Review
                           ↓
                  Corrective Action
                           ↓
                    Change Management
                           ↓
                  Continual Improvement
                           ↓
                 Continue / Change / Retire
                           │
                           └──────────────────↺
                           

Management System
       ↕
AI Governance Framework
       ↕
AI Lifecycle
       ↕
Risk and Controls
       ↕
Procedures
       ↕
Evidence
       ↕
Assurance
       ↕
Improvement

ISO/IEC 42001 Alignment
          ↓
AIGO Governance Requirement
          ↓
Implementation Requirement
          ↓
Operational Procedure
          ↓
Control
          ↓
Evidence
          ↓
Monitoring
          ↓
Assurance
          ↓
Management Review
          ↓
Improvement

55.3 Implementation Planning

Organizations using the mapping should identify:

applicable ISO/IEC 42001 requirements;
corresponding AIGO governance elements;
responsible organizational roles;
applicable procedures;
required controls;
required evidence;
monitoring requirements;
assurance requirements; and
improvement activities.
55.4 Implementation Traceability

Each implementation activity should maintain traceability to the applicable governance requirement.

A practical implementation record may contain:

Field	Description
Requirement ID	Applicable requirement identifier
AIGO Reference	Related AIGO framework element
Lifecycle Stage	Applicable lifecycle stage
Procedure	Applicable operational procedure
Control	Applicable control
Owner	Accountable role
Evidence	Required evidence
Status	Implementation status
Review Date	Next review date
56. Mapping Validation
56.1 Purpose

The mapping should be validated before being relied upon for formal governance assessment or assurance activities.

56.2 Validation Activities

Validation should determine whether:

every mapped relationship is accurate;
the referenced AIGO document exists;
the referenced procedure exists;
the referenced control exists;
the lifecycle relationship is logical;
the mapping does not create unsupported conformity claims;
evidence expectations are achievable; and
ownership is clearly defined.
56.3 Validation Workflow
Mapping
   ↓
Reference Verification
   ↓
Requirement Verification
   ↓
Lifecycle Verification
   ↓
Control Verification
   ↓
Evidence Verification
   ↓
Owner Verification
   ↓
Validation Approval
56.4 Validation Evidence

Validation evidence should be retained as controlled documented information.

Evidence may include:

mapping review records;
reviewer comments;
gap assessments;
approved revisions;
cross-reference records;
control verification records; and
management approval.
57. Mapping Gap Management
57.1 Purpose

Identified mapping gaps should be recorded and managed through the organization's governance and improvement processes.

57.2 Gap Categories

Mapping gaps may include:

missing AIGO requirement;
missing ISO/IEC 42001 relationship;
missing procedure;
missing control;
missing evidence;
unclear ownership;
incomplete lifecycle coverage;
outdated reference;
unsupported relationship; or
unresolved interpretation.
57.3 Gap Management Process
Identify the gap.
Record the gap.
Determine its significance.
Assign an owner.
Define the required action.
Establish a target date.
Implement the action.
Verify closure.
Update the mapping.
Retain evidence of closure.
57.4 Gap Prioritization

Gaps should be prioritized according to:

risk;
regulatory significance;
stakeholder impact;
governance importance;
control dependency;
assurance findings;
implementation urgency; and
organizational objectives.
58. Mapping Change Management
58.1 Purpose

Changes to the AIGO Framework or ISO/IEC 42001 alignment requirements should be reflected in the mapping through controlled change management.

58.2 Change Triggers

A mapping review should be initiated when there is:

a new AIGO framework version;
a material framework amendment;
a change to lifecycle architecture;
a new or modified control;
a new or modified procedure;
a relevant standards update;
a regulatory change;
an assurance finding;
a material governance change; or
a significant organizational change.
58.3 Change Assessment

The impact of a proposed change should be assessed against:

affected mapping sections;
affected lifecycle stages;
affected controls;
affected procedures;
affected evidence;
affected roles;
affected implementation guidance; and
affected assurance activities.
58.4 Change Workflow
Change Identified
       ↓
Impact Assessment
       ↓
Mapping Review
       ↓
Affected References Identified
       ↓
Revision
       ↓
Review
       ↓
Approval
       ↓
Version Update
       ↓
Communication
59. Mapping Review and Assurance
59.1 Purpose

The mapping should be subject to periodic review to ensure continued accuracy and usefulness.

59.2 Review Inputs

Review activities should consider:

implementation experience;
internal assessments;
assurance findings;
audit findings;
management review outcomes;
regulatory developments;
framework changes;
procedure changes;
control changes; and
stakeholder feedback.
59.3 Review Outputs

The review should identify:

confirmed relationships;
relationships requiring clarification;
obsolete relationships;
missing relationships;
implementation gaps;
evidence gaps; and
improvement opportunities.
59.4 Assurance Relationship

The mapping may be used by assurance personnel to trace:

Requirement
   ↓
AIGO Reference
   ↓
Procedure
   ↓
Control
   ↓
Evidence
   ↓
Test / Review
   ↓
Finding
   ↓
Corrective Action
59.5 Assurance Limitation

The mapping itself should not be treated as evidence that an organization conforms to ISO/IEC 42001.

Conformity depends on the organization's actual implementation, documented information, operational effectiveness, and objective evidence.

60. Management Use of the Mapping
60.1 Purpose

Management should use the mapping as a strategic overview of the relationship between AI governance activities and the AI management system.

60.2 Management Information

Management reporting may use the mapping to understand:

implementation status;
governance coverage;
major gaps;
control effectiveness;
lifecycle performance;
assurance findings;
regulatory exposure;
improvement priorities; and
overall governance maturity.
60.3 Management Decision Support

The mapping should support decisions concerning:

resource allocation;
governance priorities;
risk treatment;
control investment;
assurance planning;
remediation;
system authorization;
organizational maturity; and
strategic improvement.
60.4 Management Review Relationship

Mapping performance should be considered where relevant during management review.

Mapping Status
      ↓
Implementation Status
      ↓
Risk / Control Status
      ↓
Assurance Results
      ↓
Management Review
      ↓
Decision
      ↓
Improvement
61. Mapping to AIGO Implementation Guidance
61.1 Purpose

The ISO/IEC 42001 mapping should connect directly to the AIGO implementation guidance structure.

61.2 Implementation Guidance Relationship

The mapping should reference the implementation guidance covering:

general implementation;
governance implementation;
AI system implementation;
risk implementation;
control implementation;
lifecycle implementation;
monitoring and assurance implementation; and
continual improvement.
61.3 Implementation Chain
ISO/IEC 42001
       ↓
AIGO Mapping
       ↓
Implementation Guidance
       ↓
Procedure
       ↓
Control
       ↓
Evidence
61.4 Implementation Consistency

Changes to the mapping should be reviewed for potential effects on implementation guidance.

Similarly, material changes to implementation guidance should be reviewed for potential effects on the mapping.

62. Mapping to AIGO Procedures
62.1 Purpose

The mapping should provide a bridge from management-system requirements to operational procedures.

62.2 Procedure Relationship

Relevant procedures include:

AI governance;
AI system registration;
AI risk assessment;
AI classification;
AI control assessment;
AI approval;
AI change management;
AI incident management;
AI monitoring;
AI assurance;
AI risk acceptance;
AI retirement; and
continual improvement.
62.3 Procedure Traceability
ISO/IEC 42001 Requirement
          ↓
AIGO Mapping
          ↓
AIGO Procedure
          ↓
Operational Activity
          ↓
Evidence
62.4 Procedure Ownership

Each procedure referenced by the mapping should have an accountable owner and defined review process.

63. Mapping to AIGO Controls
63.1 Purpose

The mapping should support traceability between management-system requirements and operational controls.

63.2 Control Relationship

Controls should be evaluated according to:

applicability;
implementation status;
ownership;
effectiveness;
evidence;
monitoring;
assurance; and
review frequency.
63.3 Control Traceability
Requirement
   ↓
Risk
   ↓
Control Objective
   ↓
Control
   ↓
Control Owner
   ↓
Implementation
   ↓
Evidence
   ↓
Effectiveness Assessment
63.4 Control Assessment

Control assessment should be performed according to the applicable AIGO control assessment procedure.

Material control deficiencies should be entered into the appropriate corrective-action or risk-management process.

64. Mapping to Evidence
64.1 Purpose

The mapping should provide a foundation for determining what evidence is needed to demonstrate implementation.

64.2 Evidence Categories

Evidence may include:

policies;
procedures;
approvals;
assessments;
registers;
risk records;
control records;
monitoring records;
incident records;
assurance records;
training records;
management review records; and
improvement records.
64.3 Evidence Chain
Requirement
   ↓
Governance Activity
   ↓
Procedure
   ↓
Control
   ↓
Execution
   ↓
Evidence
   ↓
Review
64.4 Evidence Sufficiency

Evidence should be sufficient to demonstrate that the relevant governance activity has been:

defined;
assigned;
implemented;
monitored;
reviewed; and
improved where necessary.
65. Mapping and Continual Improvement
65.1 Purpose

The mapping should contribute to the AIGO continual-improvement cycle.

65.2 Improvement Inputs

Improvement opportunities may originate from:

mapping gaps;
implementation experience;
incidents;
monitoring;
assurance;
audits;
management review;
regulatory change;
stakeholder feedback; and
maturity assessments.
65.3 Improvement Cycle
Identify
   ↓
Assess
   ↓
Prioritize
   ↓
Improve
   ↓
Implement
   ↓
Measure
   ↓
Review
   ↓
Update Mapping
   ↺
65.4 Improvement Outcome

The objective is not merely to maintain a static cross-reference but to ensure that the mapping remains useful as an operational governance instrument.

66. Mapping Governance Principle
66.1 Principle

The AIGO-to-ISO/IEC 42001 mapping should be treated as controlled governance information.

66.2 Governance Requirements

The mapping should be:

owned;
reviewed;
version controlled;
maintained;
traceable;
supported by evidence;
subject to change management; and
integrated with the broader AIGO governance system.
66.3 Final Governance Relationship
Govern
   ↓
Map
   ↓
Implement
   ↓
Control
   ↓
Measure
   ↓
Assure
   ↓
Review
   ↓
Improve
   ↓
Update
   ↺
67. Final Document Closure
67.1 Closure Statement

The AIGO-to-ISO/IEC 42001 lifecycle mapping establishes the relationship required to connect the AIGO Framework's operational governance model with an ISO/IEC 42001-aligned AI management-system structure.

The mapping should remain a controlled and maintainable component of the AIGO Framework.

67.2 End of Mapping

This section completes the lifecycle mapping document for the current version.

68. Document Control Record
Field	Value
Document	AIGO — ISO/IEC 42001 Lifecycle Mapping
Document ID	AIGO-MAP-ISO42001-004
Version	0.1
Status	Draft
Framework	AIGO AI Governance Framework
Mapping Standard	ISO/IEC 42001
Mapping Area	Lifecycle Management
Owner	
Reviewer	
Approver	
Approval Date	
Next Review Date	

69. End of File

---

### 70. Mapping Integrity and Consistency

#### 70.1 Purpose

The AIGO-to-ISO/IEC 42001 mapping should remain internally consistent with the structure, terminology, lifecycle model, controls, procedures, and implementation guidance of the AIGO Framework.

#### 70.2 Consistency Requirements

The mapping should be checked to ensure that:

- AIGO terminology is used consistently;
- lifecycle stages correspond to the approved AIGO lifecycle;
- referenced controls exist;
- referenced procedures exist;
- referenced implementation guidance exists;
- document identifiers remain accurate;
- relationships do not contradict other AIGO documents; and
- changes are reflected across dependent documents.

#### 70.3 Consistency Verification

The consistency verification process should include:

1. Review the mapping.
2. Verify referenced AIGO documents.
3. Verify lifecycle terminology.
4. Verify control references.
5. Verify procedure references.
6. Verify implementation references.
7. Identify inconsistencies.
8. Record required corrections.
9. Implement approved corrections.
10. Revalidate the mapping.

#### 70.4 Cross-Document Relationship

The mapping should maintain a controlled relationship with the broader AIGO documentation architecture:

```text
AIGO Framework
      ↓
AIGO Governance Model
      ↓
AIGO Lifecycle
      ↓
AIGO Risk Model
      ↓
AIGO Controls
      ↓
AIGO Implementation Guidance
      ↓
AIGO Procedures
      ↓
ISO/IEC 42001 Mapping
      ↓
Evidence / Assurance
71. Mapping Dependency Management
71.1 Purpose

Changes to documents referenced by the mapping may affect the accuracy of the mapping.

71.2 Dependency Categories

Dependencies may include:

framework documents;
governance domains;
governance roles;
lifecycle documents;
risk-management documents;
control documents;
implementation guides;
procedures;
templates;
examples;
external standards; and
regulatory requirements.
71.3 Dependency Review

When a dependent document changes, the mapping owner should determine whether:

the mapping remains valid;
references require updating;
terminology requires updating;
relationships require reassessment;
additional mapping is required; or
the mapping version must be incremented.
71.4 Dependency Workflow
Dependent Document Changes
          ↓
Dependency Identified
          ↓
Impact Assessment
          ↓
Mapping Review
          ↓
Update Required?
      ↙         ↘
    Yes          No
     ↓            ↓
Revise        Record Review
     ↓            ↓
Review          Close
     ↓
Approve
     ↓
Publish
72. Mapping Versioning
72.1 Purpose

Mapping versions should provide a clear history of changes and maintain traceability between revisions.

72.2 Version Categories

Version changes should reflect the significance of the change.

Examples include:

major structural changes;
material mapping changes;
new lifecycle relationships;
significant terminology changes;
correction of substantive errors;
minor clarification; and
editorial corrections.
72.3 Version History

A controlled version history should be maintained.

Version	Date	Change Description	Author	Approval
0.1		Initial lifecycle mapping baseline		
72.4 Version Traceability

Each revision should identify:

previous version;
new version;
change reason;
affected sections;
affected dependencies;
reviewer;
approval status; and
effective date.
73. Mapping Review Criteria
73.1 Purpose

Reviewers should use consistent criteria when evaluating the quality of the mapping.

73.2 Review Criteria

The mapping should be evaluated for:

accuracy;
completeness;
consistency;
traceability;
applicability;
clarity;
maintainability;
evidence support; and
alignment with the AIGO architecture.
73.3 Accuracy

The mapping should not claim relationships that cannot reasonably be supported by the AIGO Framework or the applicable ISO/IEC 42001 requirement.

73.4 Completeness

The mapping should identify material relationships necessary to understand how AIGO supports the relevant management-system requirements.

73.5 Traceability

Each significant relationship should be traceable through the relevant AIGO governance, lifecycle, risk, control, procedure, and evidence structures.

73.6 Maintainability

The mapping should be structured so that future changes can be incorporated without unnecessary duplication or ambiguity.

74. Mapping Quality Assurance
74.1 Purpose

Quality assurance should provide confidence that the mapping remains reliable as a controlled framework artifact.

74.2 Quality Assurance Activities

Quality assurance may include:

document review;
reference verification;
structural review;
terminology review;
lifecycle consistency review;
control traceability review;
procedure traceability review;
evidence review; and
change-impact review.
74.3 Quality Assurance Findings

Findings should be categorized according to significance.

Potential categories include:

critical;
major;
moderate;
minor; and
observation.
74.4 Quality Assurance Closure

Findings should be:

Recorded.
Assigned.
Assessed.
Corrected or accepted.
Verified.
Closed.
75. Mapping Usage for Internal Assessment
75.1 Purpose

The mapping may be used as an internal assessment reference to evaluate the organization's implementation of AIGO-aligned AI governance activities.

75.2 Assessment Inputs

An internal assessment may consider:

applicable requirements;
mapped AIGO elements;
implementation status;
documented evidence;
control effectiveness;
operational performance;
monitoring results;
assurance findings; and
corrective actions.
75.3 Assessment Model
Requirement
    ↓
Mapping
    ↓
Implementation
    ↓
Evidence
    ↓
Assessment
    ↓
Finding
    ↓
Corrective Action
    ↓
Verification
75.4 Assessment Result Categories

Organizations may classify implementation status as:

implemented;
partially implemented;
planned;
not implemented;
not applicable; or
requires further assessment.
75.5 Assessment Limitation

An internal assessment based on this mapping does not constitute certification or independent conformity assessment.

76. Mapping Usage for External Assurance
76.1 Purpose

The mapping may support external assurance activities by providing a structured explanation of how AIGO governance components relate to ISO/IEC 42001.

76.2 External Assurance Support

The mapping may assist reviewers in locating:

governance requirements;
lifecycle processes;
risk-management activities;
controls;
procedures;
evidence;
monitoring;
assurance; and
improvement records.
76.3 Evidence Principle

The mapping should be used to locate evidence rather than substitute for evidence.

Mapping
   ↓
Evidence Location
   ↓
Evidence Review
   ↓
Assessment
76.4 Assurance Independence

Where independent assurance is required, the assurance function should maintain appropriate independence and objectivity.

77. Mapping and Organizational Context
77.1 Purpose

The applicability of AIGO lifecycle activities should be considered in relation to the organization's specific context.

77.2 Context Factors

Relevant context factors may include:

organization size;
sector;
AI portfolio;
regulatory environment;
geographic scope;
stakeholder expectations;
risk appetite;
technology environment;
outsourcing model;
organizational maturity; and
strategic objectives.
77.3 Proportionality

Implementation should be proportionate to:

AI system risk;
impact;
complexity;
autonomy;
scale;
regulatory requirements; and
organizational context.
77.4 Context Relationship
Organizational Context
        ↓
AI Portfolio
        ↓
Risk / Impact
        ↓
Governance Requirements
        ↓
Controls
        ↓
Lifecycle Implementation
78. Mapping and Proportional Governance
78.1 Purpose

The AIGO governance model should support proportionate governance rather than imposing identical controls on every AI system.

78.2 Proportionality Factors

Governance intensity may depend on:

risk classification;
impact severity;
system autonomy;
decision significance;
affected population;
deployment environment;
regulatory obligations;
data sensitivity;
model complexity; and
operational criticality.
78.3 Proportionality Model
Lower Risk
   ↓
Standard Governance
   ↓
Enhanced Governance
   ↓
High-Assurance Governance
   ↓
Restricted / Escalated Governance
78.4 Mapping Relationship

The ISO/IEC 42001 mapping should support this proportional approach by identifying management-system relationships without requiring identical operational treatment for every AI system.

79. Mapping and AI System Portfolio Management
79.1 Purpose

The mapping should support governance across an organization's complete AI system portfolio.

79.2 Portfolio Relationship

Each AI system should be traceable to relevant:

owner;
classification;
risk assessment;
controls;
approval;
lifecycle status;
monitoring;
incidents;
changes; and
retirement decision.
79.3 Portfolio Traceability
AI Portfolio
      ↓
AI System
      ↓
Profile
      ↓
Classification
      ↓
Risk
      ↓
Controls
      ↓
Approval
      ↓
Lifecycle
      ↓
Monitoring
      ↓
Assurance
      ↓
Improvement / Retirement
79.4 Portfolio Governance

Portfolio-level reporting should aggregate relevant lifecycle information without losing system-level accountability and traceability.

80. Mapping and Risk Acceptance
80.1 Purpose

The mapping should recognize risk acceptance as a controlled governance decision rather than an informal operational activity.

80.2 Risk Acceptance Relationship

Risk acceptance should include:

identified risk;
risk owner;
risk assessment;
treatment options;
residual risk;
acceptance authority;
acceptance rationale;
conditions;
review date; and
reassessment triggers.
80.3 Risk Acceptance Flow
Risk Identified
      ↓
Risk Assessed
      ↓
Treatment Considered
      ↓
Residual Risk Determined
      ↓
Acceptance Decision
      ↓
Approval
      ↓
Monitoring
      ↓
Reassessment
80.4 ISO/IEC 42001 Relationship

Risk acceptance supports controlled decision-making within the AI management system and should remain subject to defined governance authority.

81. Mapping and AI System Retirement
81.1 Purpose

The lifecycle mapping should include controlled retirement of AI systems as an explicit lifecycle outcome.

81.2 Retirement Triggers

Retirement may occur because of:

business decision;
unacceptable risk;
regulatory requirement;
technology obsolescence;
performance failure;
security concerns;
replacement;
loss of business need;
supplier termination; or
inability to maintain required controls.
81.3 Retirement Process
Retirement Trigger
       ↓
Assessment
       ↓
Approval
       ↓
Decommissioning Plan
       ↓
Data / Model / Infrastructure Actions
       ↓
Access Revocation
       ↓
Dependency Closure
       ↓
Evidence Retention
       ↓
Final Review
       ↓
System Retired
81.4 Retirement Evidence

Retirement evidence should demonstrate:

authorization;
completed actions;
outstanding risks;
retained information;
terminated dependencies;
access removal;
stakeholder communication; and
final lifecycle status.
82. Mapping and Lifecycle Closure
82.1 Closure Principle

AI governance should not end at deployment or operational monitoring.

Lifecycle governance remains active until the AI system has been formally retired or otherwise transitioned to an approved lifecycle state.

82.2 Complete Lifecycle
Govern
   ↓
Identify
   ↓
Classify
   ↓
Assess
   ↓
Treat
   ↓
Approve
   ↓
Deploy
   ↓
Operate
   ↓
Monitor
   ↓
Assure
   ↓
Improve
   ↓
Change / Continue / Retire
82.3 Closure Relationship

The lifecycle should therefore operate as a controlled feedback system rather than a linear process.

83. Final Mapping Governance Statement
83.1 Statement

The AIGO-to-ISO/IEC 42001 mapping should be maintained as an authoritative internal reference for understanding the relationship between AIGO operational governance and the ISO/IEC 42001 management-system model.

83.2 Intended Use

The mapping is intended to support:

implementation;
alignment;
traceability;
governance;
risk management;
control management;
evidence management;
monitoring;
assurance;
management review; and
continual improvement.
83.3 Final Principle

The mapping should remain subordinate to the authoritative requirements of the applicable standard and the controlled requirements established by the AIGO Framework.

Where an interpretation, implementation decision, or conformity determination is required, the organization should evaluate the applicable requirement, organizational context, and objective evidence rather than relying solely on the mapping.

84. End of Current Mapping Extension
84.1 Status

The additional mapping governance and implementation guidance contained in Sections 70 through 83 extends the operational use of the AIGO-to-ISO/IEC 42001 lifecycle mapping.

84.2 Document Status

Document: AIGO — ISO/IEC 42001 Lifecycle Mapping

Document ID: AIGO-MAP-ISO42001-004

Version: 0.1

Status: Draft

Mapping Area: Lifecycle Management

---

## 85. Mapping Implementation Readiness

### 85.1 Purpose

The AIGO-to-ISO/IEC 42001 mapping should be assessed for implementation readiness before it is used as the primary reference for organizational deployment.

### 85.2 Readiness Conditions

Implementation readiness should consider whether:

- the relevant AIGO framework documents are approved or sufficiently mature;
- lifecycle stages are defined;
- governance roles are established;
- risk processes are defined;
- controls are documented;
- procedures are available;
- evidence requirements are understood;
- monitoring activities are defined;
- assurance activities are defined; and
- continual-improvement mechanisms are established.

### 85.3 Readiness Assessment

```text
Framework
   ↓
Governance
   ↓
Lifecycle
   ↓
Risk
   ↓
Controls
   ↓
Procedures
   ↓
Evidence
   ↓
Monitoring
   ↓
Assurance
   ↓
Improvement
   ↓
Implementation Ready

85.4 Readiness Gaps

Any missing component should be recorded as an implementation gap and managed through the appropriate AIGO governance process.

86. Mapping Operationalization
86.1 Purpose

The mapping should be translated into operational activities rather than being maintained only as a reference document.

86.2 Operationalization Areas

Operationalization should address:

governance responsibilities;
AI system registration;
classification;
risk assessment;
control selection;
approval;
lifecycle execution;
monitoring;
incident management;
change management;
assurance;
retirement; and
continual improvement.
86.3 Operationalization Model
Mapping
   ↓
Implementation Requirement
   ↓
Procedure
   ↓
Assigned Role
   ↓
Operational Activity
   ↓
Evidence
   ↓
Monitoring
   ↓
Assurance
86.4 Operational Ownership

Every material mapped activity should have a defined accountable role.

Where activities involve multiple functions, accountability should remain distinct from supporting responsibilities.

87. Mapping Evidence Architecture
87.1 Purpose

The mapping should support a coherent evidence architecture for demonstrating governance implementation.

87.2 Evidence Layers

Evidence may be organized into:

governance evidence;
system evidence;
risk evidence;
control evidence;
lifecycle evidence;
monitoring evidence;
incident evidence;
assurance evidence;
management-review evidence; and
improvement evidence.
87.3 Evidence Architecture
Governance
    ↓
AI System
    ↓
Risk
    ↓
Controls
    ↓
Lifecycle Activity
    ↓
Evidence
    ↓
Monitoring
    ↓
Assurance
    ↓
Management Review
    ↓
Improvement
87.4 Evidence Traceability

Evidence should be traceable to the activity that generated it and, where applicable, to the requirement, risk, control, decision, or lifecycle event that required it.

87.5 Evidence Retention

Evidence should be retained according to applicable:

legal requirements;
regulatory requirements;
contractual obligations;
organizational policy;
information-security requirements; and
records-management requirements.
88. Mapping Decision Traceability
88.1 Purpose

Material AI governance decisions should be traceable through the AIGO lifecycle.

88.2 Decision Categories

Material decisions may include:

classification;
risk treatment;
control selection;
approval;
risk acceptance;
deployment;
continued operation;
change;
suspension;
remediation; and
retirement.
88.3 Decision Traceability Model
Decision Trigger
      ↓
Relevant Information
      ↓
Risk / Impact Assessment
      ↓
Options
      ↓
Decision Authority
      ↓
Decision
      ↓
Conditions
      ↓
Evidence
      ↓
Review
88.4 Decision Accountability

The organization should be able to determine:

who made the decision;
what authority supported the decision;
what information was considered;
what risks were considered;
what conditions were imposed; and
when the decision should be reviewed.
89. Mapping Exception Management
89.1 Purpose

Exceptions to established AIGO governance requirements should be controlled and traceable.

89.2 Exception Conditions

An exception may be considered where:

a requirement cannot currently be implemented;
a temporary deviation is necessary;
a technical limitation exists;
a transitional arrangement is required; or
an alternative control provides equivalent governance intent.
89.3 Exception Process
Identify the requirement.
Describe the requested exception.
Explain the reason.
Assess risk and impact.
Define compensating measures.
Identify the approving authority.
Establish an expiry or review date.
Record the decision.
Monitor the exception.
Close or renew the exception.
89.4 Exception Workflow
Requirement
   ↓
Exception Requested
   ↓
Risk Assessment
   ↓
Compensating Measures
   ↓
Approval
   ↓
Time-Bound Exception
   ↓
Monitoring
   ↓
Review
   ↓
Close / Renew
89.5 Exception Evidence

Exception records should provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate:

why the exception was required;
who approved it;
what risk was accepted;
what compensating controls were applied;
when the exception expires; and
what follow-up is required.
90. Mapping Nonconformity Management
90.1 Purpose

Potential or confirmed nonconformities identified through implementation, monitoring, assessment, assurance, or audit should be managed systematically.

90.2 Nonconformity Sources

Nonconformities may originate from:

control failures;
procedure failures;
lifecycle deviations;
missing evidence;
unauthorized changes;
inadequate risk treatment;
monitoring failures;
assurance findings;
regulatory findings; or
management review.
90.3 Nonconformity Process
Nonconformity
      ↓
Containment
      ↓
Impact Assessment
      ↓
Root Cause
      ↓
Corrective Action
      ↓
Implementation
      ↓
Effectiveness Verification
      ↓
Closure
90.4 Relationship to Mapping

Where a nonconformity reveals a weakness in the mapping itself, the mapping should be reviewed and updated through controlled change management.

91. Mapping Corrective Action Relationship
91.1 Purpose

Corrective actions should address both the immediate issue and, where necessary, the underlying governance weakness.

91.2 Corrective Action Considerations

Corrective action should consider:

issue severity;
root cause;
affected systems;
affected controls;
affected lifecycle stages;
recurrence risk;
required resources;
responsible owner; and
effectiveness criteria.
91.3 Corrective Action Traceability
Finding
   ↓
Cause
   ↓
Risk
   ↓
Corrective Action
   ↓
Owner
   ↓
Implementation
   ↓
Verification
   ↓
Effectiveness
   ↓
Closure
91.4 Mapping Update

A corrective action should result in a mapping update when the finding demonstrates that:

a requirement was missing;
a relationship was incorrect;
a lifecycle activity was inadequately defined;
a control relationship was incomplete; or
evidence expectations were insufficient.
92. Mapping Management Review Inputs
92.1 Purpose

The mapping should provide useful information for management review of AI governance performance.

92.2 Management Review Inputs

Relevant inputs may include:

mapping changes;
mapping gaps;
implementation status;
control effectiveness;
lifecycle performance;
incidents;
assurance findings;
corrective actions;
regulatory changes;
stakeholder feedback; and
improvement opportunities.
92.3 Management Review Flow
Mapping Information
       ↓
Performance Analysis
       ↓
Management Review
       ↓
Governance Decision
       ↓
Resource / Priority Decision
       ↓
Improvement Action
92.4 Management Review Outputs

Outputs may include:

approved changes;
resource decisions;
corrective actions;
risk decisions;
control improvements;
lifecycle changes;
strategic priorities; and
mapping updates.
93. Mapping Governance Metrics
93.1 Purpose

Organizations may establish metrics to evaluate the quality and usefulness of the mapping.

93.2 Potential Metrics

Metrics may include:

percentage of mapped requirements reviewed;
percentage of mappings with verified references;
percentage of mapped controls implemented;
percentage of mapped procedures operational;
evidence completeness;
overdue mapping reviews;
mapping-related findings;
mapping-related corrective actions;
unresolved mapping gaps; and
mapping update cycle time.
93.3 Metric Relationship
Requirement
   ↓
Mapping
   ↓
Implementation
   ↓
Evidence
   ↓
Measurement
   ↓
Analysis
   ↓
Improvement
93.4 Metric Interpretation

Metrics should be interpreted in organizational context.

A high mapping completion percentage does not by itself demonstrate effective implementation or conformity.

94. Mapping Maturity Assessment
94.1 Purpose

Mapping maturity may be assessed as part of the broader AIGO AI governance maturity model.

94.2 Maturity Dimensions

Assessment may consider:

mapping completeness;
traceability;
ownership;
evidence integration;
automation;
monitoring;
assurance;
update discipline; and
management use.
94.3 Maturity Model
Level 1 — Initial
        ↓
Level 2 — Defined
        ↓
Level 3 — Implemented
        ↓
Level 4 — Managed
        ↓
Level 5 — Optimized
94.4 Maturity Improvement

Improvement priorities should focus on the weakest material dimensions rather than simply increasing documentation volume.

95. Mapping Automation Opportunities
95.1 Purpose

As the AIGO Framework matures, selected mapping activities may be supported through automation.

95.2 Potential Automation

Automation may support:

reference validation;
document-link checking;
control traceability;
procedure traceability;
evidence indexing;
change detection;
mapping completeness analysis;
review reminders;
version comparison; and
reporting.
95.3 Automation Relationship
Controlled Documents
       ↓
Structured Metadata
       ↓
Traceability Data
       ↓
Automated Validation
       ↓
Governance Reporting
       ↓
Human Review
       ↓
Decision
95.4 Human Oversight

Automation should not replace accountable governance decisions.

Automated mapping outputs should remain subject to appropriate human review.

96. Mapping Integration with Governance Tools
96.1 Purpose

The mapping may eventually be integrated with governance, risk, compliance, documentation, evidence, or AI lifecycle management tools.

96.2 Integration Areas

Potential integrations include:

AI system registries;
risk registers;
control repositories;
evidence repositories;
workflow systems;
monitoring platforms;
assurance systems;
incident-management systems;
change-management systems; and
reporting dashboards.
96.3 Integration Model
AIGO Mapping
     ↕
AI Registry
     ↕
Risk Register
     ↕
Control Repository
     ↕
Evidence Repository
     ↕
Monitoring
     ↕
Assurance
     ↕
Management Reporting
96.4 Integration Principle

Integration should preserve authoritative ownership of governance information and should not create uncontrolled duplicate records.

97. Mapping Security and Access Control
97.1 Purpose

The mapping and associated evidence may contain governance-sensitive information and should therefore be protected appropriately.

97.2 Access Considerations

Access should be based on:

role;
business need;
governance responsibility;
information sensitivity; and
applicable security requirements.
97.3 Protected Information

Sensitive information may include:

risk assessments;
security findings;
incident information;
vulnerabilities;
confidential stakeholder information;
supplier information;
regulatory assessments; and
management decisions.
97.4 Access Governance
Information
    ↓
Classification
    ↓
Access Requirement
    ↓
Authorization
    ↓
Access
    ↓
Monitoring
    ↓
Periodic Review
98. Mapping Retention and Archival
98.1 Purpose

Mapping records and associated evidence should remain available for the period required to support governance, assurance, legal, regulatory, and organizational needs.

98.2 Retention Considerations

Retention should consider:

applicable law;
regulatory requirements;
contractual requirements;
organizational policy;
audit requirements;
system lifecycle duration;
incident requirements; and
historical traceability.
98.3 Archival

Superseded versions should be archived where necessary to preserve historical traceability.

98.4 Archival Relationship
Current Version
      ↓
New Version
      ↓
Approval
      ↓
Publication
      ↓
Previous Version Archived
      ↓
Historical Traceability
99. Mapping Finalization Criteria
99.1 Purpose

The mapping should have defined criteria for transition from draft to an approved controlled baseline.

99.2 Finalization Criteria

Before finalization, the organization should verify:

document structure;
terminology;
lifecycle coverage;
ISO/IEC 42001 relationships;
AIGO references;
control references;
procedure references;
evidence relationships;
ownership;
review;
approval; and
version control.
99.3 Finalization Workflow
Draft
  ↓
Technical Review
  ↓
Governance Review
  ↓
Traceability Review
  ↓
Evidence Review
  ↓
Approval
  ↓
Controlled Baseline
99.4 Controlled Baseline

Once approved, the mapping becomes the controlled baseline until superseded by an approved revision.

100. Mapping Completion Summary
100.1 Summary

The AIGO-to-ISO/IEC 42001 mapping establishes a structured relationship between:

management-system requirements;
AIGO governance;
AI lifecycle management;
risk and impact management;
controls;
procedures;
evidence;
monitoring;
assurance;
management review;
corrective action;
change management;
retirement; and
continual improvement.
100.2 Final Architecture
                ISO/IEC 42001
                      ↓
               AIGO Governance
                      ↓
                AI Lifecycle
                      ↓
             Risk / Impact Model
                      ↓
                  Controls
                      ↓
                Procedures
                      ↓
                  Evidence
                      ↓
                Monitoring
                      ↓
                 Assurance
                      ↓
             Management Review
                      ↓
               Improvement
                      ↓
             Change / Continue
                      ↓
                  Retire
                      ↺
100.3 Final Principle

The mapping provides the traceability layer connecting the AIGO Framework's conceptual governance architecture with its operational implementation and ISO/IEC 42001 alignment.

It should therefore be maintained as a living controlled document and updated whenever the underlying governance architecture, lifecycle, controls, procedures, standards, regulations, or organizational context materially changes.

101. Document Control — Extended Record
101.1 Controlled Information
Field	Value
Document Title	AIGO — ISO/IEC 42001 Lifecycle Mapping
Document ID	AIGO-MAP-ISO42001-004
Version	0.1
Status	Draft
Framework	AIGO AI Governance Framework
Mapping Standard	ISO/IEC 42001
Mapping Domain	Lifecycle Management
Primary Owner	
Technical Reviewer	
Governance Reviewer	
Approver	
Effective Date	
Next Review Date	
101.2 Final Control Statement

This document is controlled within the AIGO Framework documentation structure.

Any material modification should be subject to the applicable AIGO document and change-management requirements.

102. End of Mapping Document
102.1 Final Status

AIGO — ISO/IEC 42001 Lifecycle Mapping

Document ID: AIGO-MAP-ISO42001-004

Version: 0.1

Status: Draft

End of Document