A housing-authority AI bias complaint is routed only to public relations and never to incident response or risk owners. What should the auditor recommend?

Classifying and routing AI ethics and bias incidents to IR and risk owners, not only PR, emphasizes that housing-authority bias complaints are operational risk events with technical containment needs. The correct recommendation works because eligibility AI that harms protected groups requires investigation of data, model behavior, overrides, and controls—work that public-relations handling alone cannot perform. Clear routing to incident response and risk ownership preserves evidence and drives remediation.

Assigning bias complaint ownership to communications with quarterly review by model risk owners fails because it leaves day-to-day incident handling outside IR and gives risk owners only periodic oversight instead of authority to contain harm and drive fixes. Logging ethics complaints in a PR engagement system for brand trend analysis fails conceptually because it treats bias incidents as reputation metrics rather than operational risk events requiring immediate IR and risk-owner action. Retaining bias reports in a PR knowledge base for sharing with risk teams during annual review fails because it delays incident response and remediation until a once-a-year review instead of routing complaints to IR and risk owners when they arrive.

Exam caveat: routing to IR without fairness expertise can still produce shallow "no bug found" closures; include model risk or equity reviewers in the path. Operational check: define bias/ethics incident categories, mandatory IR/risk notification rules, evidence retention, and cross-functional review before closing housing AI fairness complaints.