Skip to main content
Clause 4.4 is the clause that gives all the others teeth. It requires firms to be able to provide, on request, written information about five things. The standard says “on request” and does not limit who can ask. In practice that could be a client, RICS, or someone dealing with a complaint or claim. The obligation is the same either way, and “we do this, we just did not write it down” is not an answer to it.
RICS has not published an assessment checklist for this standard, and this page is not one. It is built from the five things clause 4.4 names, and the records the other clauses require you to hold.
In guardbook: Client Explanations, opened from Client Disclosures, puts all five together for each AI tool. Pick the client, and it only shows reliability decisions about that client’s work. Record when you send it, and the evidence pack lists it.

​
The five things

Which tools, supplied by whom, doing what at your firm.Where it lives: the Tool Register.
What the system does and where it falls down. Limitations, not just capabilities.Where it lives: the Purpose and Known limitations fields on each tool in the Tool Register. The capability evaluation in the tool’s appropriateness assessment adds detail.
What you asked the supplier, what they said, what they would not say, and what testing you did.Where it lives: supplier due diligence per tool.
Not a list of risks. The process: how they are found, scored, mitigated, reviewed.Where it lives: the Risk Register and your AI policy together. The register shows the risks, the policy shows the process.
The clause 4.2 written decisions.Where it lives: the Oversight Log.

​
What else you would want to hand over

Beyond clause 4.4, the other clauses each leave an artefact. If someone is asking questions about your AI governance, these are what answer them: In guardbook: the evidence pack assembles what the product holds into one document.

​
The two questions that are hardest to answer well

“When did you last review this?” A register or a policy created once and never touched is the most common weakness, and it is visible from the timestamps. Clause 3.3 says the register must be reviewed and updated at least quarterly, not just reviewed. “Show me a decision where you concluded the output could not be used.” A log in which every single output was reliable invites the question of whether anyone was really applying professional scepticism. Rejections are evidence that the process is real.