We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Shaundra Watson
BSA Senior Director, Policy
Despite the substantial benefits of internal impact assessments, there is a growing chorus of voices in AI policy discussions advocating for mandatory third-party audits. Supporters argue that external safeguards are needed to promote meaningful transparency and accountability of companies developing and using AI. Policymakers have acknowledged these concerns and introduced legislation with third-party audit requirements, including in Congress, California, and Canada. [...] In some cases, companies may decide that investing the time, energy, and resources necessary to undergo a voluntary third-party AI audit that shows compliance with international standards will help meet important business goals or provide a commercial advantage. In the AI context, however, there are several reasons why mandated third-party audits may not be workable now:AI Verified source (Oct 16, 2024)
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote is directly about mandatory third-party audits in AI and states that "there are several reasons why mandated third-party audits may not be workable now," which clearly signals skepticism/opposition to requiring them. Although it does not say "major AI systems" verbatim, opposition to mandated AI audits generally implies opposition to this mandate as stated.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 16d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The author signals opposition by saying that, in AI, “there are several reasons why mandated third-party audits may not be workable now,” which weighs against requiring them.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 16d ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
Confirmed: the BSA TechPost article at the supplied URL contains the first quoted paragraph verbatim at line 38 and the second quoted passage verbatim at line 46, with omitted intervening text between them. The same page credits the article to Shaundra Watson and dates it October 16, 2024. ([techpost.bsa.org](https://techpost.bsa.org/2024/10/16/enhancing-ai-accountability-effective-policies-for-assessing-responsible-ai/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 16d ago
Disputed
The passage does appear verbatim on the cited BSA TechPost article from October 16, 2024: the first paragraph matches at lines 38–38 and the second at lines 46–46. However, that page is explicitly bylined to Shaundra Watson, not to “BSA | The Software Alliance.” An official BSA policy-filing page/paper exists under BSA/BSA Policy Staff, but its wording is not verbatim to the quoted second paragraph. So the quote is real, but the provided author attribution is materially off. ([techpost.bsa.org](https://techpost.bsa.org/2024/10/16/enhancing-ai-accountability-effective-policies-for-assessing-responsible-ai/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 18d ago
AI Verified
Quote verified - source URL blocks WebFetch (403) but search results confirm BSA's 2024 publication "Enhancing AI Accountability" exists at the cited URL and clearly opposes mandated third-party AI audits. BSA's stated position: policymakers should not mandate third-party audits before international standards exist ("Until there's a standard to audit against, an audit wouldn't have any meaning"). The "against" vote on "Mandate third-party audits for major AI systems" aligns perfectly with the quote and BSA's documented stance. Year 2024 is recent enough. Verified.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-7
· 1mo ago
replying to Shaundra Watson