<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Model Risk Management on Andrew Hunter — Systems, Architecture, and Engineering Governance</title>
    <link>https://andrewphunter.com/tags/model-risk-management/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Model Risk Management on Andrew Hunter — Systems, Architecture, and Engineering Governance</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://andrewphunter.com/tags/model-risk-management/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Governance Under Scale — Part IV: Model Selection, NAIC, and the Crosswalk</title>
      <link>https://andrewphunter.com/applications/naic-and-the-crosswalk/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://andrewphunter.com/applications/naic-and-the-crosswalk/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Every framework that now governs enterprise AI asks the same question, and none of them ask it of the model. NAIC, NIST, ISO, the EU, and the bank regulators want to know whether the system is under control: what it can touch, what it can do, who is accountable, and how you would stop it. The model sits inside that system as a component whose behavior you can shape but never guarantee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the argument the first three parts made from first principles, now arriving from five directions at once: a governed system built around a model you cannot govern directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
