Ask
Say who you are and what is in front of you. You will get questions to take to a visit, a huddle, a pitch, or a kitchen table.
You do not need a framework to have a stake. You need a way in that does not drown you.
For I want to understand this
Opening
What am I trusting this with, and what would I need to know to keep using it with open eyes?
What does this tool keep of me, and who else can see it?
When it is fluent, how do I tell that from true?
What would I refuse to let it decide, even if it is faster?
If it were wrong in a way that mattered, who would I tell?
Same questions, denser rooms. Go when you are ready — not as a test of seriousness.
Database of named risks
MIT AI Risk Initiative
More than 1,700 risks drawn from dozens of existing frameworks. Two maps sit on top: a domain taxonomy (what kind of harm) and a causal taxonomy (who, on purpose, and when).
You are writing a policy, a board paper, or a curriculum and need the source taxonomy.
How to manage, not only name
U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology
A voluntary framework for putting AI risk into an organisation's ordinary risk practice. Widely referenced; not a law.
You are past 'what can go wrong' and need a cycle: govern, map, measure, manage.