Skip to content

Operationalizing ISO/IEC 42001:2023 in Modulos

ISO 42001 becomes manageable when the AIMS is treated as a living operating model: governance work is executed continuously and evidence is produced as a byproduct. This page is the implementation playbook for running the AIMS on Modulos using the OFF-7 / MFF-7 (legacy) or OFF-10 / MFF-10 (clause-aligned) framework templates.

Quick decision

  • You are starting a fresh AIMS rollout → one organisation project with OFF-7 or OFF-10, plus one AI-application project per AI system with MFF-7 or MFF-10.
  • You already operate ISO 27001 or 27701 → add the ISO 42001 OFF template to the existing organisation project; reuse the shared Annex SL management-system processes; only stand up AI-specific clauses and Annex A controls.
  • You are building the Statement of Applicability → record control selection as evidence on the Annex A area requirements (ORF-191ORF-194 org-side; MRF-216MRF-220 app-side on OFF-10 / MFF-10).
  • You are choosing between OFF-7 / MFF-7 and OFF-10 / MFF-10 → both record and link ISO/IEC 42001:2023 requirements. OFF-7 / MFF-7 has more granular Annex A control coverage; OFF-10 / MFF-10 has clause-aligned requirement names matching the OBP. Use what your tenant has configured.

TL;DR

  • Two framework template pairs record and link ISO 42001 requirements: OFF-7 + MFF-7 (legacy, more granular) and OFF-10 + MFF-10 (clause-aligned).
  • Two project layers: organisation project for the AIMS spine; AI-system projects for per-system execution.
  • AIMS spine on the org project: scope statement, AI policy, AI risk-management process, internal audit, management review, corrective action.
  • AI-system execution on the app project: AI impact assessment, lifecycle controls, data controls, monitoring evidence.
  • Statement of Applicability is owner-authored documentation stored as evidence on Annex A area requirements.
  • IMS integration with ISO 27001 / 27701: share Clauses 4–10 processes; keep AI-specific Clauses 5.2 / 6.1.2 / 6.1.3 / 6.1.4 and Annex A controls explicit.

Primary source

ISO/IEC 42001:2023Information technology — Artificial intelligence — Management system. Modulos framework templates: OFF-7 / MFF-7 (legacy) and OFF-10 / MFF-10 (clause-aligned) in modulos_platform/content/templates/frameworks/. Available via the ISO Online Browsing Platform. © ISO.

ProjectTemplateWhen to use
One organisation projectOFF-7 or OFF-10 (add to existing org project if you already run ISO 27001 / 27701)Scope statement, AI policy, Annex SL management-system processes, internal audit, management review, corrective action
One AI-application project per AI systemMFF-7 or MFF-10AI impact assessment, lifecycle controls (Annex A.6), data controls (Annex A.7), monitoring evidence, supplier evidence

The split mirrors the standard's own structure: organisation-wide management-system layer on one side; per-AI-system operational layer on the other.

Set up: a sequence that works

How to operationalise ISO 42001 in Modulos

OFF-10 / MFF-10 mapping:

AIMS elementOFF-10 / MFF-10 requirementClause
Organisational contextORF-1624.1
Interested partiesORF-1634.2
AIMS scope statementORF-1644.3
AIMS itselfORF-1654.4
Leadership commitmentORF-1665.1
AI policyORF-1675.2
Roles and responsibilitiesORF-1685.3
AI risk-management generalORF-1696.1.1
AI risk assessmentORF-1706.1.2
AI risk treatment + Statement of ApplicabilityORF-1716.1.3
AI impact assessment (org-level scoping)ORF-1726.1.4
AI objectivesORF-1736.2
Planning of changesORF-1746.3
Resources / competence / awareness / communicationORF-175ORF-1787.1–7.4
Documented informationORF-179 / ORF-180 / ORF-1817.5.1–7.5.3
Operational planning + controlORF-1828.1
Monitoring + measurementORF-1839.1
Internal audit + audit programmeORF-184 / ORF-1859.2.1 / 9.2.2
Management review (process / inputs / outputs)ORF-186 / ORF-187 / ORF-1889.3.1 / 9.3.2 / 9.3.3
Continual improvementORF-18910.1
Nonconformity + corrective actionORF-19010.2
Annex A.2 Policies related to AIORF-191A.2
Annex A.3 Internal organizationORF-192A.3
Annex A.4 Resources for AI systemsORF-193A.4
Annex A.5 Assessing impacts of AI systemsORF-194A.5
AI risk assessment (operational)MRF-2138.2
AI risk treatment (operational)MRF-2148.3
AI system impact assessment (operational)MRF-2158.4
Annex A.6 AI system life cycleMRF-216A.6.2
Annex A.7 Data for AI systemsMRF-217A.7
Annex A.8 Information for interested partiesMRF-218A.8
Annex A.9 Use of AI systemsMRF-219A.9
Annex A.10 Third-party and customer relationshipsMRF-220A.10

OFF-7 / MFF-7 mapping (legacy, more granular Annex A coverage):

AIMS elementOFF-7 / MFF-7 requirementClause
Organisational contextORF-654.1
Stakeholder needsORF-664.2
AIMS scopeORF-674.3
AIMS itselfORF-684.4
AI policyORF-695.2
Roles and responsibilitiesORF-705.3
AI risk-management generalORF-716.1.1
AI risk assessmentORF-726.1.2
AI risk treatmentORF-736.1.3
AI impact assessment (operational)MRF-746.1.4
Annex A.6 lifecycle controls (granular)MRF-93MRF-100A.6.x
Annex A.7 data controls (granular)MRF-101MRF-104A.7.x
Annex A.10 supplier managementMRF-84A.10.3
Internal auditORF-889.2
Management reviewORF-879.3
Continual improvementORF-8510

What is first-class UI vs evidence-attached

  • First-class — Modulos exposes the framework template ID on the project (Settings → Frameworks) and the requirement readiness signal on each ORF / MRF requirement.
  • Evidence-attached (no dedicated UI) — the Statement of Applicability, the AI risk-assessment method document, the AI impact-assessment artefact, internal-audit reports, management-review minutes, corrective-action records, supplier assessments. Each is owner-authored documentation stored as control-level evidence on the relevant requirement.

This is deliberate. ISO 42001 expects the organisation to own the form of its AIMS artefacts; locking them into a prescribed workflow would defeat the standard's risk-driven, context-specific intent.

IMS integration — ISO 42001 + 27001 + 27701

ISO management-system standards share the Annex SL backbone, which makes IMS integration realistic. The shared layer:

  • document control (Clause 7.5)
  • internal audit (Clause 9.2)
  • management review (Clause 9.3)
  • corrective action (Clause 10.2)
  • competence (Clause 7.2)

What stays standard-specific:

  • ISO 27001: information-security risk and Annex A (normative) information-security controls.
  • ISO 42001: AI policy (5.2), AI risk + impact (6.1.2 / 6.1.3 / 6.1.4), Annex A (informative) AI lifecycle and data controls.
  • ISO 27701: privacy risk, PII processor / controller distinctions, Annex A and B privacy controls.

Practical pattern in Modulos: add the relevant OFF templates to the same organisation project; share evidence across them where a single control satisfies multiple obligations (e.g., a single internal-audit programme that covers ISMS + AIMS).

Related: ISO 27001 integration with AI governance · ISO 42001 vs ISO 27001 comparison.

Cross-framework mapping (preview)

ISO 42001 elementAdjacent framework
Clause 4.3 AIMS scopeEU AI Act Articles 6 + 25 system classification; ISO 27001 Clause 4.3 ISMS scope
Clause 6.1.2 AI risk assessmentEU AI Act Article 9 risk-management system; NIST AI RMF MAP / MEASURE / MANAGE
Clause 6.1.3 AI risk treatment + SoAEU AI Act Article 9 mitigation; ISO 27001 Clause 6.1.3
Clause 6.1.4 / 8.4 AI impact assessmentEU AI Act Article 27 FRIA; NIST AI RMF MAP
Annex A.6 AI system lifecycleEU AI Act Articles 8–15 substantive obligations
Annex A.7 Data for AI systemsEU AI Act Article 10 data governance; GDPR Articles 5, 6, 9; ISO/IEC 27701 PIMS
Annex A.8 Information for interested partiesEU AI Act Article 13 transparency; Article 50 transparency
Annex A.10 Third-party / customer relationshipsEU AI Act Article 25 value chain; ISO 27001 Annex A supplier controls
Clauses 9.1 / 9.2 / 9.3 monitoring + audit + reviewEU AI Act Article 72 post-market monitoring; ISO 27001 / 27701 Clauses 9
Clause 10.2 corrective actionEU AI Act Article 73 incident reporting; ISO 27001 / 27701 Clause 10.2

Common pitfalls

  • Copying Annex A control text into a spreadsheet and calling it an implementation. The SoA is the output of the risk-driven selection, not the input.
  • Treating the AI risk assessment as a one-time gap analysis. Clause 6.1.2 expects a continuous lifecycle mechanism — the risk register should change as systems, suppliers and the threat environment change.
  • Confusing the AI risk assessment with the AI impact assessment. 6.1.2 = organisational risk; 6.1.4 = consequences for individuals, groups, society.
  • Internal audit as a documentation review. Auditors expect operational sampling — control execution records, decisions, evidence — not just policy completeness.
  • Mixing AIMS work with product execution. The org project holds the management-system spine; per-system MFF projects hold the operational evidence. Keeping them separate keeps review queues legible.

Source attribution

ISO/IEC 42001:2023Information technology — Artificial intelligence — Management system, Clauses 4–10 + Annex A. © ISO/IEC. Available via the ISO Online Browsing Platform. Modulos framework templates OFF-7, MFF-7, OFF-10, MFF-10 in modulos_platform/content/templates/frameworks/.

Disclaimer

This page is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal or certification advice.