Measure and test trustworthiness characteristics (Measure)
Download: JSON · MarkdownUnder NIST AI RMF, MEASURE function
What this label means
- Verified
- — a named reviewer opened the official source and confirmed the record; the date and the reviewer are shown.
- Pending review
- — linked to the official source and in the queue for a reviewer to confirm.
- Source-linked
- — linked to the official source, not yet confirmed by a reviewer.
On this page 9 sections
In brief
Measure and test trustworthiness characteristics (Measure) is a voluntary measure under the NIST AI RMF in the United States (MEASURE function). Measure covers selecting metrics and test methods, evaluating validity, safety, security, resilience, explainability, privacy, fairness and bias, and monitoring these over time, including through independent review and red-teaming for generative AI.
- Instrument
- NIST AI RMF
- Jurisdiction
- United States
- Nature
- Voluntary guidance
- Source reference
- MEASURE function
- Who it binds
- Provider / developer
- Evidence examples
- 1
- Framework mappings
- ISO/IEC 42001:2023
- Controls that meet it
- 3
- Official source
- Open official text
- Verification
- Source-linked
What does it require?
Measure covers selecting metrics and test methods, evaluating validity, safety, security, resilience, explainability, privacy, fairness and bias, and monitoring these over time, including through independent review and red-teaming for generative AI.
Practical action
Define a test plan with metrics for each trustworthiness characteristic and record results.
Who does it apply to?
Voluntary; any organisation adopting the framework.
- Actors
- Provider / developer
- Sectors
- Cross-sector / all sectors
Which controls meet this duty?
Satisfies: the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports: it contributes but the duty needs more. Each control page lists every other duty it serves, so work done once can be counted once.
-
satisfiesTechnical measureQuality or testing lead · at launch and on material changeAccuracy, robustness, fairness and security testing
Serves 15 recorded duties · evidence: Pre-release test report, Test plan and acceptance criteria, Release test sign-off
Metrics and test methods for each trustworthiness characteristic.
-
supportsTechnical measureAI security or safety lead · at launch and on material changeAdversarial and red-team testing for generative AI
Serves 8 recorded duties · evidence: Red-team exercise report, Red-team rules of engagement and scenario library, Adversarial findings tracker
Red-teaming and independent review for generative AI.
-
supportsTechnical measureAI system owner · continuousPost-deployment monitoring and drift detection
Serves 10 recorded duties · evidence: Post-market monitoring plan, Monitoring dashboard or periodic monitoring report, Monitoring review decision
Tracking metrics over time.
Templates that cover this duty
Generated from the records. Free · no account · links emailed to your work address. This duty is cited in each file with its source reference and a link back here.
- AI Risk Register (MIT AI Risk Repository taxonomy)
Register · XLSX · v4
- ISO/IEC 42001 Gap Assessment and Statement of Applicability
Assessment · XLSX · v3
- NIST AI RMF ↔ EU AI Act ↔ ISO/IEC 42001 Crosswalk
Crosswalk · XLSX · v3
- AI Audit Evidence Tracker
Register · XLSX · v1
What evidence would a reviewer expect?
| Evidence | Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation and red-team reports | report |
Framework mappings
Original editorial crosswalks. They cite clause numbers only and reproduce no standard text; confidence reflects how direct the mapping is.
See every United States duty mapped this way →
| Framework | Reference | Note | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 | Clause 9 Performance evaluation; Annex A verification controls | Original editorial mapping. | medium |
Frequently asked questions
Is this a legal requirement?
No. It is voluntary guidance under NIST AI RMF; following it is expected or recommended rather than required by law.
Who must comply with this obligation?
Voluntary; any organisation adopting the framework.
What evidence shows compliance?
A reviewer would expect: Evaluation and red-team reports.
Which frameworks map to this obligation?
It is mapped to ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 9 Performance evaluation; Annex A verification controls. These are editorial crosswalks with a stated confidence, not official mappings.
Which controls satisfy this obligation?
Adversarial and red-team testing for generative AI; Accuracy, robustness, fairness and security testing; Post-deployment monitoring and drift detection.
What should an organisation do in practice?
Define a test plan with metrics for each trustworthiness characteristic and record results.
Cite this record
AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Measure and test trustworthiness characteristics (Measure) (NIST AI RMF)” [AIPT-OBL-0114, verified 26 September 2026 by Bhaskar Bhatt]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0114 (accessed 27 October 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.
Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0114: it never changes or gets reused, and its address keeps working if this page moves.
Cite the official text alongside it: Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), National Institute of Standards and Technology, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.100-1.pdf.
BibTeX
@misc{aipolicytracker2026_measureandtesttrustworth,
author = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
title = {{Measure and test trustworthiness characteristics (Measure) (NIST AI RMF)}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-nist-ai-rmf-measure}},
url = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-nist-ai-rmf-measure},
urldate = {2026-10-27},
note = {Data licensed CC BY 4.0. Accessed 27 October 2026}
}
Change history
No change to this record's tracked fields has been recorded since 15 October 2026, when field-level history began.
Similar obligations in other instruments
- Manage systemic risk for high-impact general-purpose models — EU AI Act, European Union
- Large frontier developers must publish a frontier AI framework — California SB 53, California (United States)
- Large frontier developers must send periodic summaries of catastrophic-risk assessments to the state — California SB 53, California (United States)
- Operators of AI above the compute threshold must run lifecycle risk management and report safety results — AI Basic Act, South Korea
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.