As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become embedded in mission-critical sectors like healthcare, financial services, cybersecurity, and public infrastructure, the importance of robust Model Risk Management (MRM) has grown exponentially. Traditional MRM frameworks, such as those guided by regulatory standards like SR 11-7 in banking, were built for statistical models with limited scope. But today’s general-purpose AI models (GPAIs) like GPT-4, Claude, and other large language models (LLMs) introduce new dimensions of risk: low interpretability, emergent behavior, and unpredictable failure modes.

Unlike legacy models, these modern AI systems operate across unstructured data, evolve through fine-tuning and reinforcement, and are often deployed in high-stakes, real-time environments - from algorithmic trading and fraud detection to clinical diagnostics and autonomous systems. Their opacity and scale make traditional risk controls insufficient.

Recent real-world failures illustrate this growing vulnerability:

• Meta’s Galactica, an LLM trained for scientific research, was pulled offline within days after generating plausible yet false information, sparking academic backlash.
• A single factual error in Google Bard’s demo caused a $100 billion drop in Alphabet’s market value, demonstrating how LLM inaccuracies can trigger large-scale financial and reputational damage.

These are not edge cases - they underscore the systemic risks posed by unmonitored or misaligned AI models.

To address this evolving landscape, two recent research contributions offer timely and comprehensive solutions:

• The Frontier AI Risk Management Framework by Campos et al. presents a lifecycle-based approach to AI model governance, borrowing from aviation safety and nuclear engineering to introduce graded risk thresholds and intervention criteria.
• In parallel, Papagiannidis et al. propose a Responsible AI Governance model grounded in ethical AI principles, focusing on accountability, transparency, and fairness across the AI development lifecycle.

This blog synthesizes these perspectives into a modern MRM blueprint, one that combines technical rigor with AI ethics, compliance-readiness, and cross-industry applicability. Whether you're deploying foundation models, managing AI governance risk, or preparing for AI regulatory compliance, this guide provides a practical framework for building safe, explainable, and trustworthy AI systems at scale.

What is Model Risk Management?

Model Risk Management (MRM) is the structured process of identifying, assessing, mitigating, and continuously monitoring risks that arise from the development and use of models—especially those that support or automate critical decision-making. These risks can stem from various sources: incorrect assumptions during model design, poor data quality, misuse of the model in unintended contexts, or failure to account for evolving real-world conditions.

For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, several governments and hospitals relied on predictive models to allocate ICU beds and ventilators. In one high-profile case, a hospital’s model underestimated infection rates due to outdated training data and limited demographic representation. The result was a misallocation of critical medical resources, putting lives at risk. This scenario underscores how model risk goes beyond spreadsheets—it has real-world, high-stakes consequences.

In the AI era, MRM has expanded well beyond its financial roots. With AI systems now recommending parole decisions, diagnosing diseases, scoring job applicants, or assisting with autonomous vehicle navigation, the stakes involve not just economic loss, but ethical concerns (like fairness and bias), safety risks (such as malfunction or misuse), governance breakdowns (such as lack of accountability), and societal harms. A recruitment AI model trained on historical resumes, for example, may learn to discriminate against women or minority candidates—reflecting systemic biases encoded in data. Hence, modern MRM must be as much about aligning with social values and regulatory standards as it is about improving model accuracy or performance.

Risk Identification: Know Your Enemy

Effective Model Risk Management starts with seeing the full picture of potential risks, both known and unknown. As outlined by Campos et al., risk identification is the foundation of any responsible AI deployment, and it must be approached from multiple angles.

• Classification of Known Risks: This includes well-documented vulnerabilities like algorithmic bias, misinformation generation, adversarial attacks, or model misuse in sensitive domains such as healthcare, finance, or cybersecurity. For instance, when a language model is used to assist in coding, it might unknowingly generate insecure code snippets, which could later be exploited in real-world software. Mapping out such known failure modes using existing taxonomies and risk repositories helps ensure that organizations don’t reinvent the wheel or overlook established concerns.
• Open-ended Red Teaming: Unlike standard test cases, red teaming is about structured, creative stress-testing by adversarial experts—both internal and external—who try to break or manipulate the model. This is especially important in uncovering emergent behaviors, which only surface during inference, such as a model developing deceptive responses or bypassing safety filters when prompted in specific ways. A good example is when researchers discovered that certain large language models could be “jailbroken” using obscure prompt engineering tactics—tricks that bypass safeguards to generate harmful content.
• Risk Modeling: Borrowed from safety-critical industries like aviation and nuclear energy, this involves building event trees or fault trees—step-by-step hypothetical paths that detail how an error in one stage (e.g., data poisoning) can escalate to major failures (e.g., a corrupted AI-assisted diagnosis in a hospital). Such modeling enables organizations to estimate probabilities, assess severity, and prioritize which risks demand the most urgent mitigation.

Papagiannidis et al. extend this foundation by emphasizing that technical risks must be evaluated alongside ethical ones. It's not enough to ask, “Could this model fail?” We must also ask, “Who could it hurt if it fails?” Ethical reflection must be baked into the risk identification process. For example, if an AI system is deployed for loan approvals, risk identification should consider not only accuracy metrics but also whether the model systematically disadvantages low-income applicants or ethnic minorities—thereby perpetuating inequity and systemic bias.

As the authors of Responsible AI Governance point out,

“Risk isn’t just what goes wrong technically—it’s what goes wrong for society, for people, and for trust.”

In essence, knowing your enemy in MRM means understanding not just the algorithmic faults, but also the human and societal consequences that may follow.

Risk Analysis and Evaluation: Set Boundaries Before It’s Too Late

Once risks are identified, they must be quantified, monitored, and kept within acceptable limits. Campos et al. propose a structured approach using:

• Risk Tolerance: Define how much risk is acceptable (e.g., “<1% chance of $500M loss per year”).
• Key Risk Indicators (KRIs): Metrics that signal rising risks (e.g., model performance on cybersecurity tasks).
• Key Control Indicators (KCIs): Metrics that ensure risk-mitigation measures are effective (e.g., success rate of prompt filters).

Together, they form a triad—if a KRI threshold is crossed, a corresponding KCI must be met to keep risk below tolerance.
Example: If a model scores high on generating harmful code (KRI), it must pass stricter deployment filters (KCI).

Papagiannidis et al. extend this by introducing ethical thresholds—asking whether the model aligns with principles like fairness, explainability, and inclusiveness. A model may be technically sound but still unethical if it discriminates or lacks transparency.

Risk Treatment: Mitigate, Control, Contain

Once risks are identified and evaluated, the next step is to act decisively to keep them under control. Campos et al. outline three core strategies for AI-specific risk treatment:

• Containment Measures: Secure the model environment using access restrictions, isolation of model weights, and insider threat controls—crucial to prevent misuse or theft.
  Example: Keeping high-risk model versions air-gapped from public APIs.
• Deployment Measures: Monitor how models behave in real-world use. This includes jailbreak detection, output filtering, safety fine-tuning, and strict usage policies.
  Example: Limiting access to certain capabilities unless user identity is verified.
• Assurance Processes: Still emerging, these include high-confidence methods like interpretability tools or formal verification to prove a model is safe even at high capability levels.
  Example: Measuring how much of a neural network’s behavior can be meaningfully explained.

Papagiannidis et al. add that governance must span the entire AI lifecycle—from training data selection to deployment—and adapt as the model evolves. Risk management isn't one-and-done; it must be continuous, flexible, and responsive to real-world use.

‍

Risk Governance: Building a Culture of Accountability

Even the best-designed AI systems can fail without strong organizational governance. Risk governance ensures that clear roles, accountability structures, and decision-making processes are in place to manage AI responsibly throughout its lifecycle.

Campos et al. propose a three-tiered structure for effective risk governance:

1. Risk Owners: Each significant risk—such as model misuse or bias—should have a designated leader responsible for monitoring and mitigating it.
2. Board-Level Oversight: A dedicated committee should oversee AI risk management at the highest level, ensuring it is integrated into strategic decisions.
3. Independent Audit Function: An independent unit, free from operational ties, should regularly evaluate and challenge risk management activities to ensure they are effective and unbiased.

‍

Papagiannidis et al. expand on governance through three key dimensions:

1. Structural Practices: Clearly define roles, responsibilities, and chains of authority for managing AI risks.
2. Relational Practices: Encourage ethical collaboration between developers, users, legal teams, and external stakeholders, fostering a shared understanding of AI responsibility.
3. Procedural Practices: Establish clear processes for decision-making, review, and challenges, ensuring transparency and accountability.

Good governance goes beyond mere compliance; it fosters trust. It reassures regulators, builds user confidence, and demonstrates to society that the organization treats AI with the seriousness it deserves. In summary, responsible governance ensures that safety, ethics, and accountability are not afterthoughts, but are embedded at every level of the organization.

Why Model Risk Management Matters Now More Than Ever

As artificial intelligence becomes more integrated into critical industries, the risks associated with AI models have become significantly more impactful. AI models are now deployed in high-stakes areas such as national defense, healthcare, financial trading, and social media content moderation. In these contexts, any errors or failures in the models can have far-reaching consequences, making effective model risk management more crucial than ever.

The demands on Model Risk Management (MRM) are growing rapidly. Today, MRM in banking is no longer just about model validation. It now encompasses:

• Model governance and documentation
• Bias and performance audits
• Regulatory compliance (ECOA, Reg B, GLBA, Reg S-P)
• Third-party model oversight
• Explainability for internal and external stakeholders

This shift requires tools that bring visibility, traceability, and control into your AI systems—especially as regulators increase scrutiny on mission-critical decisions. The banking industry, once a pioneer in structured risk management (through frameworks like SR 11-7), is now facing a new wave of complexity driven by AI and machine learning. As a result, MRM must evolve to handle opaque models, dynamic decision pathways, and continuously shifting data distributions.

Without proper oversight and risk management, AI systems can lead to severe issues, including:

‍

• Discriminatory Hiring Systems: AI models used in hiring processes can perpetuate biases present in the data they were trained on...
• AI-Generated Malware: As AI models become more sophisticated, there is an increasing risk that they could be weaponized...
• Uncontrollable AI Agents Causing Real-World Harm: The deployment of AI agents in fields such as autonomous vehicles, drones, and robotics raises the concern of unintended consequences.

‍

Conclusion: Toward a Holistic MRM Mindset

Model Risk Management (MRM) is not an afterthought, but the core foundation of responsible AI development. It must be integrated throughout the AI lifecycle—from design to deployment. A holistic MRM approach combines quantitative metrics with qualitative principles, balancing technical assessments with ethical considerations.

By doing so, we shift from reactive AI governance, addressing issues after they occur, to proactive risk leadership that anticipates and mitigates risks in advance. This ensures that AI models are not only effective but trustworthy, transparent, and aligned with societal values.

The goal is to create AI systems that work well and, more importantly, that we can trust. Adopting a holistic MRM mindset is key to fostering AI that is not only powerful but also responsible and beneficial to society.

‍