SekitCrosswalk
ENES
Start now
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 — Annex A · derived mapping target

A.3.3Reporting of concerns

Provide protected, accessible channels for reporting AI concerns and route them to timely, independent review.

Mapping at a glance
A.3.3Reporting of concernsISO/IEC 42001:2023 — Annex A
RCF-0034Issues managementGovernance & Risk · PolicyRCF-0035Issues managementGovernance & Risk · Process

A.3.3 is covered by 2 Sekit CSF controls. Open in the full graph →

Mapped from the Sekit CSF

The Sekit controls that cover this requirement, lens by lens.

RCF-0034Issues management · PolicysupportsRCF-0034 requires every security issue to be logged in one place and tracked to closure; A.3.3 needs that same log to explicitly accept AI concerns from outside the security team, which the general control does not name.RCF-0035Issues management · ProcesssupportsRCF-0035 assigns owners and deadlines to logged issues and chases overdue ones; it supports A.3.3 by giving an AI concern the same enforced resolution path, though it does not guarantee the reporting channel is independent.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 counterparts

Reached through the Sekit CSF controls both map to — a mapping, not a formal equivalence.

A.5.25 Assessment and decision on information security eventsA.5.36 Compliance with policies, rules and standards for information securityA.5.24 Information security incident management planning and preparationA.5.26 Response to information security incidentsA.5.27 Learning from information security incidents

NIST CSF 2.0 counterparts

GV.RM-06 Standardized risk method establishedID.IM-04 Response and recovery plans maintainedGV.RM-07 Strategic opportunities characterized

Evidence that proves this control

What an auditor, or Sekit's evidence engine, asks for.

AI concern reporting channel
The channel through which anyone (employee, customer or third party) can safely report a concern about an AI system, and how the company reviews and responds to those reports independently.
From the Sekit evidence catalog

In practice

Employees, customers or partners need a real, protected way to flag that an AI tool is behaving badly, for example giving a customer wrong pricing, and that report needs to reach someone independent of the team that deployed the tool. An auditor asks for the AI concern reporting channel record and checks it shows a logged report or, if none exist, that the channel is genuinely discoverable and staff know it applies to AI, not only to safety or HR complaints. The usual gap is routing AI concerns into the general IT ticket queue, where they sit unreviewed for weeks with no owner.

Common gaps

AI concerns get filed in the general IT ticket queue instead of a channel with an independent review path and a tracked timeline.
Staff were never told the existing whistleblowing channel also covers AI concerns, so nobody has ever used it for that purpose.
A logged AI concern sat open for months with no assigned owner or resolution evidence attached to the issue record.

Questions your auditor will ask

How can someone report a concern about an AI system, and who reviews it?
The AI concern reporting channel takes reports from anyone and routes them to a reviewer independent of the team that runs the AI system.
How quickly are AI concerns resolved?
Each logged concern is assigned an owner and a due date by severity, tracked in the same issue log used for other security findings.
Do staff know the reporting channel covers AI, not only safety or HR complaints?
Yes, the channel and its AI scope are communicated during onboarding and referenced directly in the AI policy.

Where regulation demands it

NIS2 art. 6.10 (Vulnerability handling and disclosure) expects a working disclosure path, which the AI concern channel extends beyond software to AI behavior.
Ask Sekura: “What evidence proves A.3.3?”
Also via MCP, free with account