MS-1.1: Approaches for AI risk measurement are documented
Defined metrics + thresholds for accuracy, bias, robustness.
Last reviewed October 2026
Why MS-1.1 evidence is hard
Before you can measure anything you have to say what is being measured and where the threshold sits. Penaxtra does not define your metrics. It does document its own method in every report: the scope section states probes attempted, passed, failed, inconclusive and withheld, names the caveats, and restates coverage as a fraction of probes attempted rather than of the whole library. Borrow the shape. The thresholds are still yours to set.
How Penaxtra maps to MS-1.1
NIST AI 600-1 asks what you measured and what you did about it. The MS-1.1 identifier rides the finding into the evidence export, and the append-only audit log carries the other half: which scans ran, against which assets, on what schedule. Every finding carries the probe that was sent, a SHA-256 digest of the response it provoked, the tier that decided the verdict and its status history from first observation to close. Identity survives a re-scan: a control you closed and that comes back reopens under the same row with a reopen count, rather than arriving as a new issue.
MS-1.1 capabilities
Findings tagged with the NIST AI 600-1 MS-1.1 identifier
Penaxtra severity for this control (high)
Cross-framework identifiers attached to the same finding where controls overlap
PDF and JSON evidence export with the control identifier attached
MS-1.1 control coverage
Findings for MS-1.1 carry the NIST AI 600-1 MS-1.1 identifier along with the corresponding control identifiers in the other frameworks Penaxtra maps, so one result is reflected across each mapped framework.
Frequently asked
What is MS-1.1 (Approaches for AI risk measurement are documented)?
Defined metrics + thresholds for accuracy, bias, robustness. It is a NIST AI 600-1 control; Penaxtra assesses it at high severity.
How does Penaxtra test for MS-1.1?
NIST AI 600-1 asks what you measured and what you did about it. The MS-1.1 identifier rides the finding into the evidence export, and the append-only audit log carries the other half: which scans ran, against which assets, on what schedule. Every finding carries the probe that was sent, a SHA-256 digest of the response it provoked, the tier that decided the verdict and its status history from first observation to close. Identity survives a re-scan: a control you closed and that comes back reopens under the same row with a reopen count, rather than arriving as a new issue.
Does a finding for MS-1.1 help with an audit?
Each finding is tagged with the NIST AI 600-1 MS-1.1 identifier and exported in the PDF and JSON evidence pack, so it appears on the auditor control list with the identifier already attached.