Change control requires re-review when a city chatbot expands from FAQ answers to eligibility advice. What governance trigger is this?

Triggering governance re-review when civic AI scope expands into higher-impact advice is the correct change-control trigger when a chatbot grows from FAQ answers to eligibility advice. Risk is not fixed at initial approval; advising on eligibility can affect resident benefits, fairness, and appeals in ways that listing office hours does not. Change control that forces re-review on scope expansion keeps controls, testing, and human-review rules aligned with the new impact. The trigger works because prior FAQ approval does not automatically authorize higher-stakes advisory behavior.

Assuming FAQ approval covers any future advice the bot might give fails by concept: approval is scoped to assessed use, not an unlimited future feature license. Expanding scope quietly during a holiday weekend to avoid scrutiny fails by concept and integrity—circumventing governance is itself a control failure. Treating eligibility advice as identical risk to listing office hours fails by concept: informational hours and eligibility determinations differ sharply in resident impact and error cost.

Exam caveat: re-review is required on material scope expansion; trivial copy edits to FAQs may not need a full board, but eligibility advice is material. Keep city chatbot change-control framing. Operational check: define scope-change triggers (e.g., moving into eligibility, enforcement, or rights decisions); require governance re-review before enabling those intents; update testing and human-review rules; and prohibit silent holiday expansions of high-impact advice.