Standards map 05

Mapping workflow evidence to NIST, OWASP, ISO 42001, and Indonesian guidance.

How standards can structure an evaluation without turning it into an unsupported certification claim.

Written by Fadli Adrian · Updated 2026-07-31

Crystalline network representing evidence traceability

Traceability map

Standards frame the question. Evidence answers it.

The connection improves accountability and coverage while keeping certification and legal conclusions with the appropriate authorities.

NIST AI RMF

Lifecycle risk structure

OWASP GenAI

Security pressure and abuse paths

ISO/IEC 42001

Management-system expectations

Local guidance

Sector and jurisdiction context

Mapping layerContext + criterianot certification
Bounded workflow evidence

Observed behavior connected to operational consequence.

ScenarioTraceFindingRetest
01

Analysis

NIST frames lifecycle risk

The AI RMF organizes governance, mapping, measurement, and management. Scenario evidence can support those activities by showing how an agent behaves inside an identified context and risk boundary.

02

Analysis

OWASP expands security pressure

OWASP guidance helps teams challenge prompt injection, excessive agency, unsafe tool use, data exposure, and related adversarial conditions. Security tests should still connect to the workflow consequence.

03

Analysis

ISO and local guidance define organizational expectations

ISO/IEC 42001 addresses an AI management system, while Indonesian guidance continues to evolve by sector. Verune can organize evidence against these concepts but must keep certification and legal conclusions with qualified authorities.

Primary references

Sources behind this field guide.

Continue the evidence path

Related field guides and research.

Read the flagship research report

Next step

Turn the principle into workflow evidence.

Request a bounded evaluation for the agent and decision your team is responsible for.