A business unit signs a contract for an AI-enabled analytics platform. Procurement clears the vendor questionnaire. Legal drafts the data-processing addendum. Security checks the integration.
Six months later, the model is shaping pricing decisions, customer segmentation or hiring screens in ways nobody documented at launch. The audit committee asks the CIO for the evidence supporting the deployment. However, the CIO did not pick the model. The CIO did not approve the use case. The CIO did not own the evaluation set.
The board still expects an answer.
Today, that pattern is common across enterprises. Boards hold CIOs accountable for AI outcomes they did not select, did not architect and cannot fully monitor. The use cases come from business units. The models come from vendors. The compliance memos arrive after launch. When the audit committee asks who owns AI risk, the org chart points back to the CIO. The org chart is not the operating model.
Related:Gen Z is booing AI: Why it's a workforce problem for CIOs
Accountability without authority fails. Pre-deployment evidence gates are how authority returns to the role. CIOs need control of those gates before accepting responsibility for what runs in production.
A gate is a release control with a named artifact, a named owner and a named decision rule. Before any AI system reaches production, the gate must produce four outputs:
A written description of how the model is intended to behave.
A record of evaluations run against that intent.
A documented decision to ship signed by an accountable individual.
A monitoring plan that defines when the system gets pulled.
Most enterprises have model approval forms. Few have an artifact pipeline that ties model behavior to evaluation evidence, to a sign-off chain and to a runtime monitoring contract. Without that pipeline, the CIO answers board questions with vendor assertions.
Six controls translate the gate model into enterprise practice:
A model intake gate that records vendor identity, model provenance, license terms and intended deployment domain before the contract is signed.
A behavioral specification written by the business owner, naming what the model must do and not do.
An evaluation record that tests the deployed model against the specification, using the evaluation sets that the business owner reviewed.
A signed go-live decision from a named individual with authority to halt deployment.
A monitoring contract that defines runtime metrics, refusal-rate baselines and the conditions that trigger rollback.
A refresh cadence that requires re-attestation when the model updates, the use case expands or the regulatory environment shifts.
Related:How Sedgwick scaled AI in legacy claims workflows
Each control produces an artifact. Each artifact has an owner. The CIO owns the pipeline.
Ownership requires explicit authority. The CIO needs veto rights over production deployment, not advisory rights after procurement. AI systems should not clear vendor onboarding unless the intake artifact exists. They should not connect to enterprise data unless the behavioral specification and evaluation record exist. They should not enter production unless the business owner signs the go-live decision and accepts the rollback criteria.
The CIO does not need to own every AI use case. The CIO does need to own the control plane.
Consider China's AI filing regime, which is not a model for U.S. companies to follow. It is useful for a narrower reason: It shows what happens when pre-deployment evidence is incorporated into the release process at scale.
The Cyberspace Administration of China runs a public algorithm registry that crossed 5,000 filings from roughly 2,353 unique companies by November 2025, processing 250 to 300 entries monthly. The underlying provisions require cross-functional compliance teams spanning engineering, product, security, legal and compliance specialists. Filing becomes a release artifact, not a post-launch cleanup. That filing structure produced the integration through fixed deadlines, enumerated documentation categories and a scope that left no alternative to integration.
Related:InformationWeek Podcast: CTOs on how they use AI in regulated spaces
U.S. CIOs have less runway than they think. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act's high-risk system obligations are scheduled to take effect Aug. 2, even as delay proposals create planning uncertainty. The Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act, originally set for February, was pushed to June 30 by the state's Senate Bill 25B-004 and is already under legal challenge. The New York Department of Financial Services issued AI-related cybersecurity guidance in October 2024 that maps AI risk into supervisory expectations for regulated financial institutions.
State and federal sectoral rules continue to multiply. Boards will demand evidence of AI control before any of those rules formally bind.
The CIO does not need to own every AI decision. Yet, the CIO does need to own the gates between procurement and production. Without those gates, AI accountability is not governance. It is blame assignment.
About the Author
Author
Collin Hogue-Spears is an independent researcher and the author of "From Lab to Life: How AI Works in China" (Gatekeeper Press, July 2026).
Collin's commentary on AI governance, software supply chain security and regulatory compliance has appeared in 42 articles across 24 publications, including The Wall Street Journal, Politico Pro, The Observer, InformationWeek, CIO.com, CSO Online, Dark Reading and SC Media. He has authored bylined pieces for Cybersecurity Insiders and Manufacturing Business Technology, and held technical leadership roles in Shanghai, including at AWS China Regions.
Learn more about Collin at https://collinhoguespears.ai.