84% of Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205) you already have
Canada Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) already covers about 84% of Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205), leaving
3 of 19 controls as genuinely new work.
Already covered 0
Likely covered 16
New work 3
No control in Canada Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA)
maps directly to one in Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed SB 24-205). Everything counted as covered is covered because both
map to the same third standard, which is what a crosswalk is, but it is an inference rather
than a lookup.
What is genuinely new work
Nothing in Canada Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) reaches these. This is the list to scope.
CO-AIA-1703-8Small Deployer Exemption
CO-AIA-1706Enforcement by the Attorney General
CO-AIA-1707Attorney General Rulemaking
Show the 16 you already have
CO-AIA-1701-DISCRIMAlgorithmic Discrimination Definition
CO-AIA-1701-HIGHRISKHigh-Risk AI System and Consequential Decision Scope
CO-AIA-1702-1Developer Duty of Reasonable Care
CO-AIA-1702-2Developer Documentation and Disclosures to Deployers
CO-AIA-1702-3Impact-Assessment Support Artifacts
CO-AIA-1702-4Developer Public Statement
CO-AIA-1702-5Developer Disclosure of Algorithmic Discrimination
CO-AIA-1703-1Deployer Duty of Reasonable Care
CO-AIA-1703-2Risk Management Policy and Program
CO-AIA-1703-3Impact Assessment
CO-AIA-1703-4Consumer Pre-Decision Notice
CO-AIA-1703-5Adverse Decision Explanation, Correction and Appeal
CO-AIA-1703-6Deployer Public Statement
CO-AIA-1703-7Deployer Disclosure of Algorithmic Discrimination to AG
CO-AIA-1704Disclosure of AI System to Consumers
CO-AIA-1705Affirmative Defense and Recognised Frameworks
How this is calculated
Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in Canada Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) to that control. Likely
covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third
standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one
friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified
fact.
Coverage is not symmetric.
Run it the other way and you will get a
different number; both are correct.
From 332,959 cross-framework control
mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against
their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means
the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.
Try another pair ยท
Today's edition