A housing model card claims the model is non-extractable but provides no evidence. What should an authorized review do?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
‘Trust us, you can’t copy it’ without a test is just a sticker—ask for proof in the model card.
Full Explanation
If a housing model card claims the model is non-extractable but provides no evidence, an authorized review should challenge unsupported anti-extraction claims and require test evidence in civic documentation. Model cards and assurance artifacts must back security assertions with methods, scopes, results, and residual risk—especially for housing decisions that affect residents’ access to services and benefits.
Waterfall walls in waiting rooms, velvet covers on case folders, and LED planters in lobbies are facilities décor. They do not substantiate extractability claims or improve documentation quality. Aesthetic upgrades cannot replace empirical verification and validation for municipal AI systems.
Exam caveat: “non-extractable” is rarely absolute; honest documentation states resistance under defined query budgets and access assumptions. Reject marketing absolute language without tests, and treat missing evidence as a documentation defect.
Operational check: return the model card to the owner with a requirement for extraction-resistance test results or removal of the claim, and block reliance on that claim in procurement or release decisions until evidence exists and is retained for audit.