Terms related to trustworthiness · 3.5.2
accountability
the state of being answerable in that way
What this term settles
This is the sense the standard gives accountability. A firm is free to use another sense, but then the difference belongs in its own glossary rather than in an assumed shared language.
Who it binds
The clause does not instruct anyone: it settles what accountability means so that an instruction written elsewhere can be read the same way by both sides.
What to do in your practice
Put accountability in the controlled vocabulary with its citation, an owner and a review date. Then test the inventory and the policy against the entry and record every place the firm uses a different word for the same thing.
Evidence an auditor or regulator asks for
- A controlled vocabulary entry for accountability with the citation 3.5.2, an owner and a review date.An auditor can check that accountability is controlled rather than assumed.
- An assurance argument that links the property to the test, the review or the incident record behind it. The row names accountability.Shows accountability in use in the artefact the firm relies on, not only in a glossary.
- A register row with the owner, the date and the evidence reference for the claim. The record carries the accountability entry and its date.The assurance case asserts the property without naming the test, review or incident record that supports it. The gap is tested against accountability.
Common gaps this page catches
- accountability is used in the assurance argument without a written definition, so two teams can mean different things.
- A local synonym has grown up beside accountability and the two are now used interchangeably.
What to prepare before the amendment lands
Put accountability on the agenda of the next AI governance meeting with two questions: where is it used, and what would show it is used correctly? Record the answers as actions.
How to test it here
Take one live artefact rather than a template, find the sentence or field where accountability is used, and put this page beside it. Record the answer, the artefact and the date, because that record is the evidence and a glossary entry on its own is only an intention.
What this page does not claim
The page does not reproduce the standard, certify the firm or predict the wording the amendment will use; it states accountability at the claim level "definition" and stops where the public record stops.
Common questions
- What does accountability mean in ISO 22989?
- the state of being answerable in that way
- What evidence should we keep for 3.5.2?
- A controlled vocabulary entry for accountability with the citation 3.5.2, an owner and a review date. An assurance argument that links the property to the test, the review or the incident record behind it. The row names accountability.
- Is accountability a requirement?
- No: accountability is a definition or clause of a terminology standard, and it becomes binding only when a firm writes it into a policy, a contract or a procedure, or when another standard incorporates it.
Related units
Source. ISO/IEC 22989:2022, Clause 3.5.2, Terms and definitions. Open the ISO public entry. Retrieved 21 October 2026.
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso-iec:22989:ed-1:v1:en
ISO catalogue record 88145, the amendment status, stage and dates. Catalogue record 74296, the base standard.
Claim level: definition. The definition is in the public preview. This page states it in our own words and does not reproduce the text.
Last updated: 2026-10-21 · Markdown version · Check your vocabulary