Terms related to AI · 3.1.26
planning
the computational work of arranging a set of actions into a workflow that is meant to reach a stated goal
What this term settles
The term looks ordinary until two teams use it differently. The entry removes that room by naming the thing, its inputs and its limits in one sentence.
Who it binds
A definition binds nobody on its own, so the force of planning comes only from the reader who adopts it in a policy, a contract, a data schema or an assurance argument.
What to do in your practice
Write the entry into the glossary the firm actually reads, not a shelf document. Check the two artefacts where the word does most work and note any sentence that stretches the meaning.
Evidence an auditor or regulator asks for
- A controlled vocabulary entry for planning with the citation 3.1.26, an owner and a review date.An auditor can check that planning is controlled rather than assumed.
- An AI system inventory field that records the entry for each system, with its owner. The row names planning.Shows planning in use in the artefact the firm relies on, not only in a glossary.
- A policy or procedure sentence that uses the entry in this sense. The record carries the planning entry and its date.The policy borrows the word but not the boundary, so a supplier system and an in-house model are treated as the same kind of thing. The gap is tested against planning.
Common gaps this page catches
- planning is used in the AI vocabulary a policy reaches for first without a written definition, so two teams can mean different things.
- The entry for planning exists in a glossary but not in the system record, so the two disagree at the point of use.
What to prepare before the amendment lands
Brief the owners who use planning most often, then ask each to return one artefact that shows the entry in use. File the artefacts against the register row.
How to test it here
Take one live artefact rather than a template, find the sentence or field where planning 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 planning at the claim level "definition" and stops where the public record stops.
Common questions
- What does planning mean in ISO 22989?
- the computational work of arranging a set of actions into a workflow that is meant to reach a stated goal
- What evidence should we keep for 3.1.26?
- A controlled vocabulary entry for planning with the citation 3.1.26, an owner and a review date. An AI system inventory field that records the entry for each system, with its owner. The row names planning.
- Is planning a requirement?
- No: planning 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 3.1.26, 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