# SPM-011: Support the AI tool approval and review lifecycle


- Area: AI Security Posture Management

- Verification: Walkthrough
- OWASP adoption tier: AT0–AT4, AT6
- Formerly: GOV-008
- URL: /r/SPM-011

**Acceptance criteria:** Define and track unapproved versus approved AI tools and MCP servers.

**Why it matters:** Without a governed approval path, teams route around the control.

**How to verify:** Walk a tool or MCP server request from intake to a recorded decision.

**OWASP adoption context:** Managed assistants, platforms and connected-agent workflows need approval status and periodic review; status should be visible throughout the tool lifecycle.

**Mappings:**
- NIST AI RMF: GOVERN 6.1, MANAGE 3.1; SOC 2: CC9.2, CC5.3 — Approved/unapproved tool and MCP-server records supply inventory context and inputs to third-party governance and permitted-use review. Tracking status alone does not establish assessment criteria, due diligence, approval authority, periodic supplier review, retirement decisions, enforcement or conformity of actual use with its intended purpose.
- ISO 27001: A.5.9, A.5.23 — Tool identity and approval status provide asset-register fields and, for cloud services, approval tracking within an operated cloud-use process. A status flag does not establish assessment criteria, approval authority, supplier due diligence, periodic review or retirement decisions.
- ISO 42001: A.4.2 — Approved and unapproved tool records document AI resources and their status. They do not assess supplier responsibility or establish that actual use matches the system’s intended functions.
- NIST CSF 2.0: ID.AM-02 — Approved and unapproved tool states provide concrete software and service-inventory attributes. Status tracking does not itself assess or manage changes and exceptions for cybersecurity risk.