Assess AI workflows with a release note, not a standalone cost estimate
Make production a release question
Do not choose based on a low model price first; instead, ask the release question for a specific workflow: which risk has been assessed, what must be traceable afterwards, and what evidence is still missing? This is an editorial approach, not a general legal test. NIST positions the AI Resource Center as support for operationalizing the AI Risk Management Framework and refers to tools for testing, evaluation, verification, and validation (TEVV). The European Commission cites adequate risk assessment and mitigation systems, logging of activity to ensure traceability of results, and detailed documentation providing all information necessary on the system and its purpose. The latter three points are explicitly listed in the passage under the obligations for high-risk AI systems before they are placed on the market.
Complete one release note per deployment
Use the note when discussing one defined deployment, for example a system that produces draft answers for an internal team. First, record the intended outcome and the owner. Then document which risk the owner has reviewed, which activity must be traceable later, which system and purpose documentation is available, which TEVV question remains open, and whether the deployment is released, adjusted, or put on hold. Enter the following exactly: "Intended outcome; owner; assessed risk; traceable activity; available system and purpose documentation; open TEVV question; release decision." This is a practical tool of our own: the sources do not prescribe this format, the owner's role, or the decision point. The format does help prevent the source topics from being confused with a non-binding cost discussion.
Keep open questions visible
A completed release note does not prove that the workflow is safe, lawful, or suitable. Above all, it makes clear which decision still lacks substantiation. The passages provide no pricing model, token limit, access design, log retention period, or minimum human oversight. "These passages do not determine which internal AI workflows qualify as high-risk and do not provide a specific threshold for cost, access, logging, documentation, or evaluation." Therefore, treat such choices as requiring additional technical, legal, and organizational assessment rather than deriving them from the passages cited here.
