Is the system used as intended, by competent people, with a real ability to refuse its output?
The controls at the point of use. This theme covers responsible-use approval, intended use, the oversight duty in law, explainability and the review of whether the assessment still holds.
What good looks like
An approval, a competence record, intended-use evidence, an explanation analysis and a review decision.
What goes wrong
Tools adopted without approval, use outside the documented domain, and nominal oversight with no override in practice.
The 6 units in this theme
| Ref | Oversight unit | Theme | Held citation | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OH-08 | Competence of the overseer | Use | ISO/IEC 42001:2023, 7.2 | 3 |
| OH-30 | Responsible use | Use | ISO/IEC 42001:2023, A.9.2 | 3 |
| OH-31 | Intended use | Use | ISO/IEC 42001:2023, A.9.4 | 3 |
| OH-37 | Monitoring and review of the assessment | Use | ISO/IEC 42005:2025, 5.12 | 3 |
| OH-38 | Explainability | Use | ISO/IEC 42005:2025, 6.8.2.8 | 3 |
| OH-39 | Human oversight in the EU AI Act | Use | EU AI Act, Article 14 | 3 |
Work the theme, not the document
Open one unit, answer its three questions, and attach the evidence it names. Then move to the next. The theme is complete when every row has a named owner, a dated artefact and a recorded answer to the questions. That is a higher bar than a policy, and a lower bar than a certification.
The paid kit carries the same rows with the owner, due date and status columns already in place, and a dated plan that sequences the six themes across the 120 days to the planning date.
The human oversight kit, USD 799 one off.
The 47-unit register, the 142-item evidence index, the 120-day plan and the gap questions, as PDF, CSV and XLSX. Five labelled rows are free on the specimen page.