Mastering Information Labelling for AI: A Practical Guide to ISO 27001 Annex A 5.13

Introduction: Why Information Labelling is Your AI Company’s Unseen Foundation

For an AI company, information is not a byproduct of business; it is the core asset and the engine of value. While ISO 27001 Annex A 5.13 Labelling of information might appear to be a simple administrative task, it is the critical foundation for protecting sensitive training data, proprietary models, and client trust in an auditable and defensible way. Mastering this control is a prerequisite for any AI organisation serious about security and governance.

Regulators, auditors, and clients view clear, consistent labelling as a “visible sign of operational maturity.” It demonstrates that your security programme is methodical and that every asset is traceable and accountable. The alternative is a chaotic environment of unlabelled data, which sends a blaring signal that your security is “built on hope, not discipline.” A single missing label can silently undermine your entire security posture, turning a routine audit into a crisis or a minor incident into a headline-making breach.

This guide moves beyond generic advice to break down what Annex A 5.13 means specifically for the unique workflows of an AI company. It provides a clear, practical path to implement robust labelling practices that not only satisfy auditors but also strengthen your operational resilience.

The AI Challenge: Analysing the Unique Risks of Information Labelling

Standard information labelling practices, designed for traditional corporate documents, often fall short when applied to the unique and complex assets of an AI company. The speed, scale, and nature of AI development create distinct risks that can turn minor labelling oversights into significant security exposures. This section analyses the specific high-stakes risks you face across the AI lifecycle, from raw training data to the deployment and maintenance of models.

Risk 1: Exposure of Sensitive Training Datasets

Failing to correctly classify and label training datasets is a primary risk. An oversight can lead to sensitive personal or proprietary client data being used improperly in model training, resulting in severe regulatory fines and loss of trust. Unlabelled legacy datasets stored on backup tapes, cloud archives, or forgotten removable media represent a significant blind spot. Worse, if unlabelled data of unknown origin is inadvertently used for retraining, it creates a vector for sophisticated threats like data poisoning or model inversion attacks. An auditor or forensic investigator will look for universal coverage across all media types, and these unlabelled archives are often where they find evidence of systemic failure.

Risk 2: Disruption of Algorithmic Processes

AI models, configuration files, and the underlying source code are all critical information assets that require precise handling. Mislabelling these assets can have immediate operational consequences, such as an incorrect or outdated model being deployed into production or sensitive algorithmic logic being mishandled by unauthorised personnel. When different teams—like data science, MLOps, and DevOps—develop their own siloed labelling schemes, the resulting inconsistencies can turn small “cracks into chasms,” creating pathways for error and data leakage.

Risk 3: Vulnerabilities in the AI Supply Chain

The modern AI supply chain is complex, often involving the transfer of information to third-party services for data annotation, model validation, or cloud-based processing. Sending improperly labelled data to an external partner is a direct path to contractual breaches and security incidents. Without clear and consistently applied labels, you lose control over how your data is handled once it leaves your perimeter. You must have clear, documented rules for the external transmission of assets, which is impossible to enforce if the assets themselves are not properly identified.

These risks demonstrate that for an AI company, effective labelling is not just about compliance but is fundamental to operational integrity. The following blueprint provides the necessary steps to address these challenges head-on.

Your Blueprint for Compliance: Actionable Steps for AI Companies

Achieving compliance with Annex A 5.13 is not a theoretical exercise but a practical discipline that must be embedded directly into your AI development lifecycle. This section provides a step-by-step blueprint to build a robust, auditable, and scalable information labelling programme tailored to the realities of a modern AI organisation.

Step 1: Establish Your Information Classification Scheme

Before you can label anything, you must know how to classify it. Labelling is the practical application of your information classification scheme, as defined under Annex A 5.12. This scheme is the cornerstone of your programme and must map directly to your organisation’s risk registry and business logic, not based on generic templates.

• Public: Information with no confidentiality requirements that can be freely distributed.
• Internal: Information for internal use only, where unauthorised disclosure would cause minimal harm. This is often the default classification.
• Confidential: Sensitive information that, if disclosed, could negatively impact the company, its partners, or customers. Access must be restricted to authorised personnel.
• Strictly Confidential: Highly sensitive data (e.g., proprietary algorithms, critical financial data) where unauthorised disclosure could cause severe damage. Access must be strictly controlled on a need-to-know basis.

Step 2: Develop a Comprehensive Labelling Procedure

Document a procedure that provides clear, unambiguous instructions for labelling. This procedure must cover both digital and physical assets to ensure there are no gaps.

Your procedure must include:

• Methods for attaching labels based on the storage media type (e.g., cloud storage metadata, local server file names, labels on physical drives).
• Specific instructions on where to attach labels for each asset type (e.g., in a document header, as a watermark, in a file name).
• Clear rules for labelling information during both internal and external transfers to partners or cloud services.
• Detailed guidance on how to insert and format metadata for digital assets.
• A consistent and uniform naming structure for all labels to avoid confusion.
• A defined process for handling situations where labelling is not technically possible, which may involve other compensating controls.

Step 3: Implement Labelling Across Your AI Lifecycle

With a clear procedure in place, implement it. Apply labels consistently across all assets, from physical hard drives containing raw data to the digital artifacts of your MLOps pipeline. The 2022 revision of ISO 27001 explicitly requires the use of metadata for digital assets to facilitate their identification, management, and discovery, making this a critical area of focus.

Technique	AI Application Example
Physical Labels	Applying a colour-coded sticker marked “Confidential” to an external hard drive used for transferring a large training dataset between secure environments.
Headers and Footers	Automatically inserting a “Strictly Confidential” footer in all documents containing model architecture specifications or performance results.
Metadata	Tagging a training dataset with Classification: Strictly Confidential, Source: Client Z – PII, Creation Date: 2024-10-15, and Retention Policy: 365-days to trigger automated deletion workflows and prevent its use in unauthorised model training environments.
Watermarking	Applying a digital watermark with the classification level and user’s ID to sensitive data visualisations or research reports before they are shared.

Step 4: Train Your Team and Assign Clear Ownership

A procedure is useless if your team doesn’t understand or follow it. Ensure effective implementation by focusing on two human factors: training and ownership.

• Training: Train all personnel and relevant stakeholders on the information classification scheme and the specific labelling procedures. This ensures everyone understands their responsibilities for correctly labelling the assets they create and handle.
• Ownership: Eliminate ambiguity. Every asset class—from training datasets to production models—must have a named owner, an explicit reviewer, and a clear escalation path. Document this ownership to remove confusion during an audit and ensure accountability in daily operations.

By following these four steps, you can build a labelling system that is not only compliant but also a genuine operational asset.

The Solution: Streamline Compliance with High Table’s Toolkit

Instead of building an entire Information Security Management System (ISMS) from scratch, leverage pre-built, auditor-verified resources to accelerate your journey to compliance. The High Table ISO 27001 Toolkit is designed to provide the exact policies, procedures, and registers needed to implement the blueprint outlined above, saving hundreds of hours of manual work and guesswork.

The toolkit provides the essential templates to execute each step of your labelling programme:

• Information Classification and Handling Policy Template: Use this template to establish your classification scheme (Step 1) and define the handling rules for each level.
• Data Asset Register Template: Use this to inventory and classify all your information assets, including datasets, models, source code, and configuration files, ensuring nothing is missed.
• ISO 27001 Documents and Records Policy Template: Use this to formalise your labelling procedure (Step 2) and ensure that all your ISMS documentation has proper version control—a common audit failure point.

Using a dedicated toolkit transforms compliance from a chaotic, manual effort into a structured, streamlined, and audit-ready process, allowing you to focus on innovation while building a foundation of trust.

---

---

Avoiding the Pitfalls: Common Labelling Failures in AI Environments

Even with a well-defined plan, several common mistakes can undermine a labelling programme. Proactively design your processes to avoid these frequent failures and ensure your system remains effective under real-world pressures.

• Over-labelling (“Confidential Everything”): When teams label almost everything “Confidential” out of caution, it creates “label fatigue,” causing employees to ignore the warnings. This is especially dangerous when it leads them to mishandle truly critical assets like proprietary model weights or sensitive personal data.
• Blind Spots in Unstructured Data & Backups: It is easy to focus on production assets while forgetting the vast stores of unstructured data. Unlabelled data logs, archived model versions, or old training datasets on legacy USB drives create massive compliance gaps. These are often the exact “gotchas” discovered during forensic reviews or deep-dive audits.
• Automation Without Oversight: Automated labelling tools are powerful for ensuring consistency at scale, but they cannot spot human nuance. Relying on automation without scheduled human spot-checking is a recipe for failure. Ensure you conduct routine manual reviews to verify that the automated tagging of new datasets aligns with the intent of your policy.
• Making the Crown Jewels Too Obvious: Overtly labelling your most critical assets “Strictly Confidential” can have the “unintended consequence” of acting as a signpost for malicious actors, pointing them directly to your most valuable data. This does not mean you should avoid labelling; it means the label itself is not enough. You must pair clear labelling with robust access controls (Annex A 5.15) and continuous monitoring to protect these clearly marked, high-value targets.

Conclusion: From Compliance Burden to Competitive Advantage

For any serious AI company, effective information labelling under Annex A 5.13 is not a compliance burden but a strategic imperative that underpins operational integrity and market trust. A disciplined approach to classifying and labelling your core assets—data and models—is a clear indicator of a mature security posture that clients, partners, and regulators demand.

The path forward is clear. Move from policy to practice. Map your critical AI assets, assign clear ownership, and train your teams. By leveraging proven tools like the High Table toolkit to accelerate implementation, you can transform this requirement from a headache into a source of strength, building a resilient, trustworthy, and audit-ready operation poised for sustainable growth.

About the author

Stuart Barker is a veteran practitioner with over 30 years of experience in systems security and risk management.

Holding an MSc in Software and Systems Security, Stuart combines academic rigor with extensive operational experience. His background includes over a decade leading Data Governance for General Electric (GE) across Europe, as well as founding and exiting a successful cyber security consultancy.

As a qualified ISO 27001 Lead Auditor and Lead Implementer, Stuart possesses distinct insight into the specific evidence standards required by certification bodies. He has successfully guided hundreds of organizations – from high-growth technology startups to enterprise financial institutions – through the audit lifecycle.

His toolkits represents the distillation of that field experience into a standardised framework. They move beyond theoretical compliance, providing a pragmatic, auditor-verified methodology designed to satisfy ISO/IEC 27001:2022 while minimising operational friction.