The accelerating deployment of artificial intelligence systems across regulated sectors has exposed critical fragmentation in risk assessment methodologies. A significant "language barrier" currently separates technical security teams, who focus on algorithmic vulnerabilities (e.g., MITRE ATLAS), from legal and compliance professionals, who address regulatory mandates (e.g., EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF). This disciplinary disconnect prevents the accurate translation of technical vulnerabilities into financial liability, leaving practitioners unable to answer fundamental economic questions regarding contingency reserves, control return-on-investment, and insurance exposure. To bridge this gap, this research presents the AI System Threat Vector Taxonomy, a structured ontology designed explicitly for Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA). The framework categorizes AI-specific risks into nine critical domains: Misuse, Poisoning, Privacy, Adversarial, Biases, Unreliable Outputs, Drift, Supply Chain, and IP Threat, integrating 53 operationally defined sub-threats. Uniquely, each domain maps technical vectors directly to business loss categories (Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Legal, Reputation), enabling the translation of abstract threats into measurable financial impact. The taxonomy is empirically validated through an analysis of 133 documented AI incidents from 2025 (achieving 100% classification coverage) and reconciled against the main AI risk frameworks. Furthermore, it is explicitly aligned with ISO/IEC 42001 controls and NIST AI RMF functions to facilitate auditability.

Organizations investing in artificial intelligence face a fundamental challenge: traditional return on investment calculations fail to capture the dual nature of AI implementations, which simultaneously reduce certain operational risks while introducing novel exposures related to algorithmic malfunction, adversarial attacks, and regulatory liability. This research presents a comprehensive financial framework for quantifying AI project returns that explicitly integrates changes in organizational risk profiles. The methodology addresses a critical gap in current practice where investment decisions rely on optimistic benefit projections without accounting for the probabilistic costs of AI-specific threats including model drift, bias-related litigation, and compliance failures under emerging regulations such as the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act and ISO/IEC 42001. Drawing on established risk quantification methods, including annual loss expectancy calculations and Monte Carlo simulation techniques, this framework enables practitioners to compute net benefits that incorporate both productivity gains and the delta between pre-implementation and post-implementation risk exposures. The analysis demonstrates that accurate AI investment evaluation requires explicit modeling of control effectiveness, reserve requirements for algorithmic failures, and the ongoing operational costs of maintaining model performance. Practical implications include specific guidance for establishing governance structures, conducting phased validations, and integrating risk-adjusted metrics into capital allocation decisions, ultimately enabling evidence-based AI portfolio management that satisfies both fiduciary responsibilities and regulatory mandates.

Policy Cards are introduced as a machine-readable, deployment-layer standard for expressing operational, regulatory, and ethical constraints for AI agents. The Policy Card sits with the agent and enables it to follow required constraints at runtime. It tells the agent what it must and must not do. As such, it becomes an integral part of the deployed agent. Policy Cards extend existing transparency artifacts such as Model, Data, and System Cards by defining a normative layer that encodes allow/deny rules, obligations, evidentiary requirements, and crosswalk mappings to assurance frameworks including NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, and the EU AI Act. Each Policy Card can be validated automatically, version-controlled, and linked to runtime enforcement or continuous-audit pipelines. The framework enables verifiable compliance for autonomous agents, forming a foundation for distributed assurance in multi-agent ecosystems. Policy Cards provide a practical mechanism for integrating high-level governance with hands-on engineering practice and enabling accountable autonomy at scale.

Many enterprises are increasingly adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) to make internal processes more competitive and efficient. In response to public concern and new regulations for the ethical and responsible use of AI, implementing AI governance frameworks could help to integrate AI within organisations and mitigate associated risks. However, the rapid technological advances and lack of shared ethical AI infrastructures creates barriers to their practical adoption in businesses. This paper presents a real-world AI application at TVS Supply Chain Solutions, reporting on the experience developing an AI assistant underpinned by large language models and the ethical, regulatory, and sociotechnical challenges in deployment for enterprise use.

We propose a conceptual, empirically testable framework for Robot Fostering, -a curriculum-driven, governance-first approach to domestic robot deployments, emphasizing long-term, curated interaction trajectories. We formalize trajectory quality with quantifiable metrics and evaluation protocols aligned with EU-grade governance standards, delineating a low-resource empirical roadmap to enable rigorous validation through future pilot studies.

This paper introduces the Hazard-Aware System Card (HASC), a novel framework designed to enhance transparency and accountability in the development and deployment of AI systems. The HASC builds upon existing model card and system card concepts by integrating a comprehensive, dynamic record of an AI system's security and safety posture. The framework proposes a standardized system of identifiers, including a novel AI Safety Hazard (ASH) ID, to complement existing security identifiers like CVEs, allowing for clear and consistent communication of fixed flaws. By providing a single, accessible source of truth, the HASC empowers developers and stakeholders to make more informed decisions about AI system safety throughout its lifecycle. Ultimately, we also compare our proposed AI system cards with the ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard and discuss how they can be used to complement each other, providing greater transparency and accountability for AI systems.

The EU AI Act (AIA) mandates the implementation of a risk management system (RMS) and a quality management system (QMS) for high-risk AI systems. The ISO/IEC 42001 standard provides a foundation for fulfilling these requirements but does not cover all EU-specific regulatory stipulations. To enhance the implementation of the AIA in Germany, the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) could introduce the national standard BSI 200-5, which specifies AIA requirements and integrates existing ISMS standards, such as ISO/IEC 27001. This paper examines the interfaces between an information security management system (ISMS) and an AI management system (AIMS), demonstrating that incorporating existing ISMS controls with specific AI extensions presents an effective strategy for complying with Article 15 of the AIA. Four new AI modules are introduced, proposed for inclusion in the BSI IT Grundschutz framework to comprehensively ensure the security of AI systems. Additionally, an approach for adapting BSI's qualification and certification systems is outlined to ensure that expertise in secure AI handling is continuously developed. Finally, the paper discusses how the BSI could bridge international standards and the specific requirements of the AIA through the nationalization of ISO/IEC 42001, creating synergies and bolstering the competitiveness of the German AI landscape.

Despite being viewed as a technology of the future, artificial intelligence (AI) has already impacted our daily lives in several ways. Right from the time we wake up, till we go to bed, AI is constantly a part of our lives in forms like voice assistants, online banking, OTT, face IDs among others. Shaping global standards for AI A number of standards covering significant AI issues are now being developed by the ISO/IEC committee for artificial intelligence under the working title ISO/IEC 42001 ISO/IEC DIS 42001 – Information technology -- Artificial intelligence -- Management system. The ISO/IEC 42001 standard, which is being developed by 50 countries, will be essential for improving AI governance and accountability globally. ISO/IEC standardisation brings together the opinions of all relevant stakeholder groups, including SMEs, academia, civil society, and many more.