Local validation before deployment
The mapping
| Framework | Where this control sits |
|---|---|
| Joint Commission RUAIH | Focus area 4 — Monitoring, evaluating and validating safety performance, effectiveness and responsible use |
| CHAI governance playbooks | Playbook 4 — Responsible AI lifecycle management |
| NIST AI RMF | MEASURE |
The artifact: Local validation study protocol and result
Who signs it: The clinical sponsor and the AI committee jointly
What an assessor actually asks for
A written protocol and a result, on your data, for every tool in the top risk tier. Not a vendor accuracy claim, and not a pilot satisfaction survey.
Why the mapping is not obvious
The guidance asks organisations to request vendor information on how tools were tested and whether the vendor will tune or validate a sample. Read that carefully: the vendor’s willingness to validate locally is itself a procurement criterion, and it belongs in the due-diligence questionnaire rather than being discovered after signature.
The most common failure
Treating a silent trial as optional because the vendor’s published AUC is high. Published performance is measured on a development population; your question is whether it holds on yours, which is a different question and the only one that matters.
Where this sits in the whole map
This is one control in the RUAIH ↔ CHAI ↔ NIST crosswalk. The artifact itself is specified at Local validation study protocol and result.
Written and reviewed by Neel Chauhan, MD MBA, physician-executive and founder of the Healthcare AI Institute. Last reviewed 2026-07-30.
Generated from data/crosswalk.yaml, where the mapping and the commentary for each control are authored individually. Reviewed on each framework revision.
The Institute accepts no vendor sponsorship, holds no vendor equity and takes no referral fees.