AI system technical documentation

Decide what technical documentation each relevant category of interested party (such as users, partners and supervisory authorities) needs, and provide it in a suitable form. The artefact behind the answer is documentation needs analysis per interested party category. For ai system technical documentation the evidence sits at the gate it belongs to.

What it asks

Decide what technical documentation each relevant category of interested party (such as users, partners and supervisory authorities) needs, and provide it in a suitable form.

Where generative AI changes the answer

Technical documentation has to be usable by someone who was not on the project, which means it cannot live only in the team's chat history.

Who it binds

The AI system owner and the delivery team at each life cycle gate. For A.6.2.7 the named role is the owner of documentation needs analysis per interested party category.

Evidence an auditor normally samples

• Documentation needs analysis per interested party category
• Technical documentation: description and intended purpose, usage instructions, deployment assumptions, technical limitations, monitoring functions
• Life cycle documentation and operational documentation (failure management, health monitoring, operating procedures, responsible roles, updates)
• Management approval and currency of documentation

The test you can run

Ask for documentation needs analysis per interested party category and for its last review date; an artefact nobody can date is paperwork rather than a control.

Common failures

• Regulators or partners given no technical documentation
• Documentation out of date after system changes
• No rollback or failure management plan documented

Before the draft publishes

For A.6.2.7, walk the use through the life cycle gates and record which gate has no evidence behind it. That gap is what an auditor will ask about first. The first artefact to produce is documentation needs analysis per interested party category.

Where this sits against the draft

The draft's published scope names controls for the risks it identifies, and A.6.2.7 (ai system technical documentation) is the published ISO/IEC 42001 control closest to that work. The draft does not replace it, and an audit still tests it against the evidence listed here.