# Public-sector AI use-case register and algorithmic transparency

- **Record type**: Control
- **Kind**: Process
- **Owner**: Agency AI officer
- **Frequency**: Annual
- **Duties served**: 6

## What the control achieves

Lets a public body account for the AI it uses by keeping an inventory of use cases, flagging those that affect rights or services, and publishing what the public and oversight bodies are entitled to see.

## How it is typically implemented

Each agency or department nominates a responsible official who collects use cases from programme teams through a standard form covering purpose, stage, data, vendors, affected people and whether the use is high-impact. Entries are reviewed for completeness and consistency with the procurement record, exclusions are documented, and the resulting inventory is published on the required cadence with sensitive items summarised. Vendors are asked at contract time for the descriptions and evidence the agency will need, and the register is used to track that high-impact uses have the extra assessments and safeguards required.

## Evidence it produces

- Public AI use-case inventory (register_entry): Published list of use cases with purpose, stage and high-impact flag.
- Algorithmic transparency statement for one use case (disclosure_notice)
- Inventory review and publication sign-off (approval_record)

## Legal duties this control serves

- Public authorities must register their use of high-risk AI and must not use unregistered systems — EU AI Act, European Union (satisfies): https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/eu-ai-act-art-26-8-public-authority-registration-before-use
- Government bodies to promote ethical, responsible and inclusive AI (policy commitment) — Nepal National AI Policy, Nepal (supports): https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/nepal-ai-policy-responsible-ai-principles
- Government agencies must disclose to consumers that they are interacting with an AI system — Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), Texas (United States) (supports): https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-texas-responsible-ai-governance-act-traiga-government-agency-ai-interaction-disclosure
- Governmental entities must not use AI for social scoring — Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), Texas (United States) (supports): https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-texas-responsible-ai-governance-act-traiga-government-social-scoring-prohibition
- Federal agencies must review and revise actions inconsistent with the new AI policy — EO 14179, United States (supports): https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-eo-14179-agency-review-of-prior-actions
- Publish an annual AI use-case inventory — OMB M-25-21, United States (satisfies): https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-omb-m-25-21-use-case-inventory

## Standards clauses it corresponds to (clause numbers only)

- NIST AI RMF 1.0: MAP 1.1, 1.5; GOVERN 1.6, 5.1
- ISO/IEC 42001:2023: Clause 4.1; Annex A.8.5
- OECD AI Principles: Principle 1.3 Transparency and explainability

## MIT AI Risk Repository subdomains addressed

6.5, 7.4, 5.2

## Provenance

- **Record page**: https://aipolicytracker.org/controls/public-sector-ai-use-case-register
- **Official source**: none recorded — this record is incomplete, see https://aipolicytracker.org/gaps
- **Review status**: pending review
- **Confidence**: medium
- **Facts last confirmed**: never confirmed against the official source
- **Retrieved**: 2026-09-24
- **Licence**: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

> This record is a structured summary with a link to the official text. It is not legal advice. Open the official source before relying on any date or duty. How current each record type must be is published at https://aipolicytracker.org/verification; what a record must carry at all is published at https://aipolicytracker.org/coverage.