AI GRCAPractice Lab
Step 1 of 13Brief
PRACTICE MODELoading

Restoring your saved mode and lab work…

01 · Scenario brief

Start the governance review

Demo mode — sign in to save your work

Read the deployment request as a governance practitioner. Your task is to test whether the case for HireAI is supported by evidence—not to validate the proposed solution.

MODULE 1 · WEEK 2

Responsible AI, trustworthy AI and harm

Ask who could be harmed, whether the system is fair, and what evidence or controls must exist before launch.

Practical output
AI Harm & Stakeholder Map
GUIDED SCENARIO · NO UPLOAD
“We want to deploy HireAI to reduce CV screening time and recommend candidates for interview.”
FICTIONAL OPERATING ENTITYNorthstar People Operations

HireAI will analyse CVs and application responses, compare them with a job description, generate a score and recommend whether each candidate should be shortlisted.

IN SIMPLE TERMS

The organisation wants a computer system to read job applications, score people and suggest who should get an interview. Your job is to check whether that process is fair, safe and supported by evidence before anyone relies on it.

THIS SIMULATION PROVIDES
  • Junior Product Analyst job description
  • 7 fictional candidate profiles
  • Simulated AI ranking and scores
  • Risk flags for governance review
Leaders expect it to:
  • Save recruiter time
  • Screen applications faster
  • Improve consistency
  • Reduce manual workload
YOUR FIRST CHALLENGE

What would you need to know before this proposal could be approved?

Think about purpose, data, affected people, evidence, accountability and the role of the recruiter.

Training simulation only. Not for live recruitment use.

This simulation uses built-in fictional data only. Do not upload, paste or enter real applicant data.

Save & continue
COMMERCIAL SIMULATION FILE

Inspect the evidence before you advise

The documents contain incomplete, conflicting and potentially unreliable evidence. Treat each claim according to its source.

OPERATING CONTEXT

The system supports decisions about workers or candidates. Equality, job relevance, transparency and genuinely meaningful human involvement are central.

COMMERCIAL PRESSURE

HR must reduce time-to-hire by 30% while the legal team has asked for a documented equality review before rollout.

EXPECTED EVIDENCE
  • Selection-rate and error analysis
  • Job-relevance validation
  • Reviewer training, override sampling and candidate redress
STEERING MEETING BRIEF

Conflicting demands, limited time, unclear ownership

Decision deadline
The steering committee meets in 10 working days. The launch slot will be lost if the decision is deferred beyond this meeting.
Budget constraint
Only GBP 28,000 remains in the assurance budget. Full independent testing was quoted at GBP 46,000, so the team must prioritise risk-based work.
Ownership gap
Product, Risk and Operations each believe another function owns final residual-risk acceptance. The governance charter is silent.
Executive sponsor

“Approve now with post-launch monitoring; delay threatens the business case.”

Risk partner

“Do not approve until critical evidence gaps and the unnamed risk owner are resolved.”

Operations lead

“The existing manual process is already failing service targets and creates its own harm.”

Supplier account director

“The product is proven in comparable organisations, but bespoke evidence requires a paid assurance package.”

OwnerPeople Operations DirectorClassificationInternal

Shows the reporting lines and decision rights relevant to the proposed AI use.

Executive sponsor
People Operations Director owns the business outcome and has requested the team to decide whether hireai may support first-pass cv screening and under which conditions. The decision must be judged against selection-rate and error analysis.
Delivery chain
People Operations Director -> Product Director -> AI Product Owner -> Data Science Lead -> Operations Manager. Procurement manages the supplier; Information Security and Data Protection are consulted.
Approval ambiguity
The Product Director believes Risk accepts residual risk. Risk states that the accountable business executive must accept it. No committee terms of reference name the final approver.
Three lines
First line operates the system; second line sets policy and challenges risk; Internal Audit has not included the system in its current plan.