AAISM prescribes building and maintaining an AI Threat-Control Matrix to ensure consistent, repeatable risk treatment. The matrix traces each material threat (e.g., prompt injection, poisoning, exfiltration) to named controls, test/evidence procedures, and assurance owners across the lifecycle. Baselines and vendor attestations can support assurance but are insufficient alone; deferring control selection until after deployment conflicts with AAISM's proactive treatment principle.
References: AI Security Management™ (AAISM) Body of Knowledge - AI Risk Treatment Planning; Threat-Control Traceability; Assurance & Evidence Management for AI Systems.

An AI governance committee provides cross-functional oversight to align AI strategy, investment, and risk appetite with business goals. It sets policies, prioritizes portfolios, ensures accountability, and integrates compliance, ethics, and security into decision-making. While compliance, ethics, and information protection are essential, governance is the primary mechanism that systematically connects AI initiatives to enterprise objectives.
References: AI Security Management™ (AAISM) Body of Knowledge: AI Governance Operating Model- Structures, Roles, and Decision Rights; AAISM Study Guide: Strategic Alignment, Portfolio Oversight, and Accountability Mechanisms.

AAISM defines data poisoning as the insertion of malicious or corrupted data into training (or fine-tuning) pipelines to degrade or bias model behavior, thereby compromising output integrity in production. While poisoning occurs during development/training (C), its primary objective is the downstream integrity impact on predictions/outputs (D). Options A and B relate to confidentiality threats (e.g., inversion or leakage), not poisoning.
References:* AI Security Management™ (AAISM) Body of Knowledge: Model Integrity Threats-data poisoning aims and effects; supply-side data controls* AAISM Study Guide: Risk scenarios for poisoning; mitigations via data provenance checks, robust training, and anomaly detection

According to AAISM risk management guidance, the greatest risk in AI applications handling personal communication data is inadequate parameter controls, which may allow unintended access, manipulation, or leakage of sensitive information. Plug-ins that interact with emails must enforce strict parameter validation and security restrictions to prevent unauthorized or manipulated inputs. While vulnerability scanning, format incompatibility, and API rate limiting are valid concerns, they are secondary. The primary risk is a lack of strong parameter controls that could expose sensitive content.

The AAISM governance framework emphasizes that the inherent limitations of generative AI-- including hallucinations, bias, and unpredictability--are best mitigated by human oversight.
Human-in-the-loop review ensures that outputs are validated before being used in sensitive or high-risk contexts. Regulatory adoption, system classification, and reverse engineering all play supporting roles but do not directly safeguard against the model's inherent unpredictability.
Governance best practices highlight human oversight as the critical safeguard.