Federal AI governance and high-impact use

Prerequisites: review prior module artifacts and the AI workflow reference. Public self-study is not official training or a credential.

What you will be able to do

This lesson develops the ability to apply current sponsor governance with explicit applicability analysis. The setting is ORION Service Navigator, a fictional public-benefits information service using public guidance and wholly synthetic constituent questions; it never determines eligibility or takes an action on a person. Every person, organization, system record, metric, and outcome in the case is fictional. Do not replace the case with operational, classified, CUI, export-controlled, proprietary, employer-confidential, or third-party personal information.

By the end of the lesson, you will be able to:

• Demonstrate how to apply current sponsor governance with explicit applicability analysis.
• Apply that model to the synthetic ORION Service Navigator environment.
• Produce a reviewable artifact that separates evidence, assumption, uncertainty, and authority.
• Recognize the critical failure and select a safe remediation path.

The performance standard is not confident language. It is a traceable decision, an artifact another qualified reviewer can inspect, a clear boundary around the learner’s authority, and a safe response to uncertainty. Knowledge checks are formative and do not award a certification or endorsement.

This curriculum runs self-study on VetsLearn. Where the text calls for an instructor, peer or formal review, use the stated acceptance criteria for self-review. Reflection questions support reflection; they do not replace independent assessment. A peer review is optional unless your actual organization requires it.

Part 1 Analyze the function before choosing a policy label.

ORION is a fictional public-benefits information assistant. Its baseline retrieves public guidance and cites it. A sponsor proposes adding a recommendation about whether a person should receive a benefit. That changes the function and potential consequence, even if the interface still looks like a chat window.

Write three separate records: what the system does, which current controlling sources may apply, and who can decide applicability or authorize the use. A course exercise can prepare the analysis; it cannot appoint you as the official decision owner.

Use a source register with document title, official location, section, effective date, scope, exceptions, evidence still needed and responsible reviewer. Do not write “compliant” merely because a policy appears in a bibliography. If a controlling source is unavailable or its scope is ambiguous, mark the point unresolved and route it to the sponsor’s responsible officials.

For this classroom case, use the packet’s fictional sponsor rules only. They are labeled fictional and establish no actual federal obligation. For real work, replace them only through authorized review of current primary sources. Keep personal and operational records out of the exercise.

Part 2 A weak memo and a reviewable replacement.

Weak memo: “ORION uses public sources, so it is low risk and all governance requirements are satisfied.” This does not address the proposed eligibility recommendation, mistaken answers, inaccessible presentation or the decision owner.

Supported memo excerpt: “The baseline retrieves public information and does not decide eligibility. Proposal B introduces person-specific recommendations; applicability and authority are unresolved. Keep B out of operational use pending sponsor review. Test whether the assistant abstains when the public source does not answer a question, and whether a reader can reach the original source and a human contact.”

Evidence rows: F1 describes the current function; R1 identifies the fictional sponsor rule; T1 checks unsupported-question abstention; A1 records a keyboard and plain-language check; D1 names the sponsor official as the decision owner. The rows do not establish actual agency approval. If the product begins taking an action on a person, reopen the function and consequence analysis.

Part 3 Repair and transfer

Keep the failing claim or result, name its violated criterion and write a correction with supporting evidence. Apply it to a second synthetic case. Success exposes unresolved evidence rather than strengthening a claim.

Transfer check and next step: change a configuration, role or consequence. Identify valid versus stale evidence and the test or authority question reopened. Carry the revision into module review; optional peer feedback is not independent professional assessment.