You are the AI risk lead at a mid-sized insurer. The Chief Risk Officer asks you to establish a formal AI risk taxonomy that will be used consistently across all business units for identifying, assessing, and reporting AI risks. Which action best ensures the taxonomy will be adopted and remain useful over time?
Aligning the new AI risk taxonomy to the existing ERM framework and risk register categories ensures that AI risks are not treated as a separate silo, enabling consistent aggregation and reporting. Piloting with two business units surfaces practical gaps and builds internal advocates before full rollout, increasing adoption and long-term usefulness.
Why this answer
A durable AI risk taxonomy must integrate with existing ERM structures so risks can be aggregated and compared across the enterprise. Piloting with a subset of business units validates the categories against real AI use cases and generates feedback before broad rollout. This combination of alignment and iterative validation is what drives sustained adoption and keeps the taxonomy relevant as AI use evolves.
Exam trap
The trap here is assuming that adopting an authoritative external taxonomy or delegating design to a single expert team guarantees quality, when adoption actually depends on integration with existing ERM structures and input from multiple stakeholders.