Skip to content

Technical evaluation

Prove the assurance outcome, not a feature checklist.

A useful design partnership starts with one governed AI system, a known change and evidence that a narrower, defensible reapproval decision is possible. This is an evaluation framework, not an offer of an already-integrated enterprise deployment.

Bounded system scopeConnector support subject to verification

Four acceptance stages

Agree pass criteria and access restrictions before running a customer pilot. No customer-specific integration or data transfer is assumed in advance.

01 / Scope

Which AI system and assurance requirements are we assessing?

Inputs

One representative AI workflow, selected components, relevant controls and authorized project owners.

Evidence of acceptance

Agreed system boundary, accepted baseline inputs, evidence source list and scope exclusions.

02 / Baseline

Can the current approved reference be reconstructed?

Inputs

Versioned configuration, approval context, existing evaluations and evidence references.

Evidence of acceptance

Identifiable approved baseline and reviewer-readable assurance mapping.

03 / Change

What actually changes, and what stays unchanged?

Inputs

One proposed candidate with a known semantic change set.

Evidence of acceptance

Auditable component comparison, affected paths and unmapped uncertainties.

04 / Revalidation

Can we avoid irrelevant reassessment without dropping obligations?

Inputs

Control/evaluation dependencies plus permitted test execution or existing results.

Evidence of acceptance

Reused versus reopened evidence, required tests, unknown coverage and a reviewer decision package.

What the pilot should measure

Change coverage

Count mapped and unmapped semantic changes against the agreed change set.

Evidence retained

Record supported evidence retained without rerunning checks, with the reason and approved scope.

Necessary revalidation

List evaluations and controls that genuinely require new work, compared against full reassessment.

Reviewer clarity

Demonstrate each reopened control has an inspectable cause, evidence reference and next action.

Decision time

Record the actual elapsed time across comparable review steps; do not claim a guaranteed reduction.

Unresolved risk

Explicitly count unknown mappings, stale sources and required manual decisions.

These are proposed measurement categories, not achieved results, guaranteed savings or a fixed pilot duration. Exact baseline, evaluation data and reviewer sign-off are defined jointly.

Optional pilot scope preview

A bounded pilot brief in two choices.

Make the first buyer conversation specific. This runs entirely in your browser; no details are submitted or stored.

Local preview · no submission

01 / Choose the problem

02 / Choose the evaluation owner

Proposed buyer conversation

Change reapproval

Evaluator
Joint engineering + governance
Requested starting inputs
Approved snapshot, candidate diff and control/evidence mapping
Expected discussion outcome
A scoped acceptance contract, evidence permissions, named owners and unresolved questions

Connector availability, product release capability, security and commercial terms require independent confirmation before any real pilot.

Technical diligence before access

  • Supported release version and connector/API scope
  • Data and artifact access, retention and privacy expectations
  • Environment and tenant isolation responsibilities
  • Identity, reviewer authority and audit expectations
  • Explicit exclusions, failure/rollback and acceptance owners

Start a qualified pilot conversation.

Bring the agent use case, its current approval process, one representative change and any constraints on evidence handling. We will agree supported capabilities before execution.