An architect asks which choice best matches how a governed AI lifecycle should handle a model that changes significantly after its initial approval. What is the correct response?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
When a model changes significantly, you can't just coast on the old sign-off. You send it back through the structured review workflow because the risk and control picture has changed.
Full Explanation
Routing it back through the structured review workflow is correct because a significant change can shift data usage, behaviour or risk in ways the original approval never assessed, so it needs to go back through the same structured review before it continues. Continuing under the original approval is incorrect because the original approval covered the model as it existed then, not as it exists after material change. Notifying the team informally and proceeding is incorrect because informal notice and a clean test run do not amount to a documented risk-and-controls review. Re-reviewing only if an external regulator requested the change is incorrect because re-review should be triggered by the significance of the change itself, not only by external regulatory demand. For the exam, treat a material change as reopening the approval, not as covered by the original sign-off.