Courts assess risk that a drafting assistant could disclose confidential case material. Which assessment approach best frames that AI risk?

Risk assessment for a court drafting assistant that might disclose confidential case material must estimate likelihood and impact of confidential disclosure against civic confidentiality objectives. That framing keeps the assessment tied to sealed records, privileged communications, and due-process harm rather than to secondary product qualities. Likelihood and impact scores then drive treatment priority for logging, access control, output filtering, and human review.

Estimating likelihood and impact of stylistic variation on judicial writing consistency objectives measures writing consistency rather than the likelihood and impact of confidential disclosure, so it misframes the court's confidentiality risk. Estimating likelihood and impact of certification gaps on vendor security assurance objectives assesses general vendor assurance rather than case-specific disclosure, so it substitutes assurance objectives for an evaluation of how this assistant actually handles sealed court material. Estimating likelihood and impact of log retention costs on operational oversight efficiency objectives assesses oversight efficiency and cost rather than disclosure harm, so it does not estimate the likelihood and impact of confidential disclosure against civic confidentiality objectives.

Exam caveat: qualitative scales are acceptable when precise frequencies are unknown, but assessors should still document assumptions and uncertainty rather than invent false precision. Operational check: in the risk file, require explicit likelihood and impact ratings for confidential disclosure, mapped to court confidentiality objectives, before the drafting assistant expands to additional case types.