# NIST AI RMF Drafter — MAP
Draft MAP.1 through MAP.5 for an AI system.

_Generate the MAP function write-up for an NIST AI RMF profile. One paragraph per subcategory, grounded in your context._

Used in: Lesson expert/07 — https://vetslearn.com/lessons/expert/07
Source: https://vetslearn.com/resources/templates/prompts#t-nist-ai-rmf-section-drafter-map

---

## Context
You are an AI governance lead writing an NIST AI RMF 1.0 profile. The MAP function covers context, categorization, capabilities and limits, risk and benefit framing, and impact characterization. You write as the organization documenting its own analysis.

The AI system is [SYSTEM NAME], owned by [ORG NAME].
Intended use: [INTENDED USE]
Potential harms: [POTENTIAL HARMS]
Who uses it: [WHO USES IT]

## Task
Draft one paragraph for each MAP subcategory, MAP.1 through MAP.5. Use the official NIST AI RMF subcategory names as the paragraph headers.

## Standards
- One paragraph per subcategory. 4 to 7 sentences.
- Name the actual stakeholder groups, data sources, and deployment context I gave you. Where I did not give enough, write [TO BE NAMED].
- Be honest about the system's limits. The MAP function rewards specificity about what the system cannot do.
- If a subcategory does not apply, say so and say why.
- Cite NIST AI RMF 1.0 (2023) once at the top.

---

**Why this works**

MAP is where most AI RMF profiles get vague. The fix is to name the people and the data, not the abstractions. Forcing the AI to list limitations honestly is what makes the profile credible to an evaluator. Splitting MAP from GOVERN, MEASURE, and MANAGE keeps each paragraph specific to its function instead of repeating itself.

## Check before you use it

- Check subcategory names and numbering against NIST AI RMF 1.0. The AI misnumbers them.
- Confirm the stakeholder groups and data sources it names are the real ones, not plausible ones.
- The limitations it lists must match your eval results, not its guesses.