A library board reviews a low-stakes catalog recommender with limited resident harm potential. Which risk treatment is most appropriate when residual risk is within appetite?

Formal risk acceptance is an appropriate treatment when a library catalog recommender has limited resident harm potential and residual risk sits within approved appetite. Documenting acceptance records the decision, owner, scope, and review date without requiring independent validation reviews for the low-stakes recommender per assurance plan, preserving control budget for higher-criticality AI. Scheduling independent validation reviews for the low-stakes recommender per assurance plan misallocates scarce assurance effort and ignores proportionality. Applying additional mitigation controls for the low-stakes recommender to lower residual risk is unnecessary and contradicts the principle that acceptance is a recognized, sufficient treatment when risk is inside appetite. Transferring residual risk for the low-stakes recommender through vendor contract indemnity terms adds unnecessary complexity and cost for a low-stakes system already within appetite; acceptance is the governed response. Exam caveat: acceptance must remain within appetite and be revisited if the recommender gains access to sensitive patron data or begins influencing higher-stakes decisions. Operational check: file a signed acceptance entry in the AI risk register stating residual rating, appetite reference, owner, and next review date before production use of the catalog recommender.