Services
Most engagements start with a Governance Snapshot Review or Governance Readiness Review. Larger reviews are typically commissioned once initial risks and scope are confirmed.
All prices are starting from amounts.
Final pricing depends on system boundary, complexity, and evidence availability.
All work is delivered asynchronously and in writing.
AI Architecture Review and Pressure Testing
We review AI system architecture at the model and system level to determine whether authority, admissibility, and evidence remain coherent under composition. The emphasis is on execution time governance, non-bypassability of controls, and whether the system's commitment surface is actually controlled. This is an architectural and specification review, not a source code audit.
- A structured review of system topology, authority flow, and execution pathways
- Identification of the irreversible commitment surface and likely bypass paths
- A pressure test plan that targets failure modes at the governance boundary
- A written findings report with actionable remediation priorities
Best fit for organisations building agentic or tool-using AI systems where incorrect actions cannot simply be undone.
Pre-Funded Startup Architectural Defensibility Assessment
Duration 5 working days
Scope High-level architectural defensibility review to determine whether the startup's system architecture is sufficiently defined and governance-ready before funding or deeper technical review.
What this covers
- High-level system architecture and boundary confirmation
- Identification of obvious architectural, governance, and authority gaps
- Initial review of execution-time control exposure and governance completeness
Outputs
- Short architectural defensibility memo
- Identification of major structural risks or missing controls
- Recommendation on whether a deeper architectural governance review is advisable
Best suited for Pre-funded startups preparing for investment, technical due diligence, or early system design validation.
Governance Snapshot Review
Duration 3 working days
Scope High-level governance snapshot to identify whether deeper architectural review is warranted.
What this covers
- High-level system boundary confirmation
- Identification of obvious governance and authority gaps
- Initial assessment of audit and execution-time risk exposure
Outputs
- Short governance snapshot memo
- High-risk flags
- Recommendation on next-step review options
Best suited for Organisations seeking a fast, paid alternative to informal "quick looks".
Governance Readiness Review
Duration 5 working days
Scope Baseline diagnostic to determine whether meaningful architectural governance review is possible for a defined system boundary.
What this covers
- System boundary definition and scope confirmation
- Identification of existing governance primitives and control surfaces
- Initial assessment of authority definition, delegation, and escalation
- Triage of governance and evidence gaps
Outputs
- Governance readiness memo
- Evidence request list
- Summary of top structural blockers and risks
Best suited for Early-stage systems, pre-agentic deployments, or organisations assessing governance exposure before deeper review.
MGAG Pressure Test Plan
Duration 5–10 working days
Scope Design of a structured pressure test programme targeting governance, authority, and compositional failure modes.
What this covers
- Decomposition of system governance layers
- Identification of execution-time authority risks
- Design of targeted pressure tests at governance seams
Outputs
- Pressure test matrix
- Evidence checklist
- Pass/fail criteria where feasible
Best suited for Teams preparing for formal system review, audit, or deployment into regulated environments.
Agentic Systems Review & Pressure Testing
Duration 2–4 weeks
Scope Full architectural governance review and pressure testing of agentic or autonomous systems.
What this covers
- Review of authority definition, delegation, and revocation
- Identification of execution-time irreversibility points
- Analysis of refusal, escalation, and traceability mechanisms
- Pressure testing of governance under realistic failure scenarios
Outputs
- Detailed review report
- Executive summary for senior stakeholders
- Technical appendix with findings and evidence requirements
Best suited for Agentic or semi-autonomous systems with irreversible actions or regulatory exposure.
Irreversibility Boundary and Non-bypassability Tests
Irreversibility is where governance either holds or fails. We pressure test whether the system has a single, non-bypassable commitment surface for actions that cannot be undone, and whether admissibility checks are atomically coupled to that surface. Where irreversibility is composite, we test whether the boundary is multi-stage, and whether each stage remains governed.
- Explicit definition and mapping of irreversible transitions across integrations
- Tests for bypassability, split commits, dual writes, and multi-rail settlement surfaces
- Evaluation of fail-closed semantics under degraded conditions
- Evidence requirements for audit survivability at the consequence surface
Best fit for payment, identity, infrastructure, healthcare, energy, and any system where “undo” is not a meaningful safety mechanism.
OTANIS-based Design for Critical Agentic Systems
OTANIS is an architectural governance approach for controlling authority at the moment actions become irreversible. It treats authority as a first-class object and requires explicit admissibility before execution, deterministic enforcement at execution time, and audit survivable evidence after execution. We design or refactor system architecture so that governance is executable, not merely policy.
- A target architecture that places governance at the point of irreversibility
- Authority object design: scope, delegation, expiry, and provenance expectations
- Execution-time enforcement structure: refusal, halt, escalation, traceability
- A deployment-ready blueprint aligned to the system's real commitment boundary
Best fit for teams building agentic systems that must remain governable under pressure, delegation, and scale.
OTANIS Feasibility Gate (Platform Providers)
Duration 7–14 days
Scope Determination of whether OTANIS-class execution-time authority evidence is achievable within a platform architecture.
What this covers
- Identification of irreversibility boundaries
- Assessment of authority object lifecycle and revocation semantics
- Review of logging, evidence, and refutability feasibility
Outputs
- Written feasibility opinion
- Architectural blockers and constraints
- Recommended integration approach and options
Best suited for Governance platform providers and vendors evaluating OTANIS adoption.
OTANIS Conformance Review & Attestation
Duration 2–3 weeks per major release
Scope Independent conformance assessment against OTANIS definitions under stated assumptions.
What this covers
- Review of implemented authority and evidence mechanisms
- Assessment of execution-time admissibility and refutability
- Explicit identification of satisfied and unsatisfied conditions
Outputs
- Conformance review report
- Boundary statements and assumptions
Best suited for Platforms or systems making external claims about execution-time governance.
3-Month Design Authority Support
Duration 3 months
Scope Acting as architectural design authority during platform development or extension.
What this covers
- Ongoing architectural review and decision scrutiny
- Authority lifecycle and evidence design oversight
- Explicit refusal of non-conformant design shortcuts
Outputs
- Monthly design authority memo
- Conformance checkpoint notes
6-Month Design Authority Support
Duration 6 months
Scope Extended design authority engagement across multiple delivery phases.
Outputs
- Monthly design authority memo
- Conformance checkpoint notes
MGAG Review for Multi-layer Governance
MGAG extends architectural governance across multiple authority domains that must all hold for a single action to be legitimate. In many real systems, authority is not singular: organisational policy, risk limits, regulatory constraints, and external rails can each impose independent admissibility conditions. We review whether authority survives across every required layer at execution time, and whether cross-layer failure is detectable before commitment.
- Identification of governance layers and their independent admissibility constraints
- Cross-layer dependency and evidence mapping for execution-time evaluation
- Failure mode analysis where one layer remains “internally correct” but externally inadmissible
- Recommendations to make cross-layer authority enforceable, not merely documented
Best fit for regulated organisations with complex approval chains, multi-jurisdiction constraints, and external execution rails.
MGAG Boundary Stress Review
Duration 5–7 working days
Scope Adversarial architectural review designed to surface authority collapse and governance failure modes under system composition.
What this covers
- Analysis of governance seams across agents, services, and vendors
- Identification of authority collapse points under composition and delegation
- Review of refusal, escalation, and traceability paths
- Stress reasoning against realistic failure and misuse scenarios
Outputs
- Boundary stress review memo
- Targeted pressure test and evidence recommendations
Best suited for Multi-agent, multi-vendor, or high-consequence systems where governance must survive integration and scale.
Review of Governance Literature, Papers, Books, and Reports
We review governance-related literature with an architectural lens: what is claimed, what is falsifiable, what depends on hidden assumptions, and what survives contact with real execution boundaries. This includes papers, books, internal reports, and vendor documentation. The output is a critique you can use for decision-making, publication, or product design.
- A structured critique: claims, assumptions, failure cases, and missing definitions
- Identification of where governance is policy-level versus executable control
- Recommendations to strengthen definitions, boundaries, and falsifiability
- A concise executive summary plus deeper technical notes (where needed)
Best fit for founders, researchers, and organisations deciding what frameworks to trust or build upon.
Architecture & Governance Red Team Review
Duration: 3–5 working days
Scope Adversarial review of internal governance, architecture, or strategy documents up to approximately 10,000 words.
Outputs
- Two-page executive critique
- Annotated document with findings
Best suited for Enterprise strategy teams and internal governance reviews.
Whitepaper Assurance & Technical Credibility Review
Duration: 7–10 working days
Scope Deep architectural and claim-level review of public technical whitepapers.
Outputs
- Assurance memo
- Optional permissioned attribution, subject to approval
Best suited for Deep tech startups and platform vendors prior to public release.
System Review (Non-Agentic)
Duration: 2–3 weeks
Scope Governance and authority review for non-agentic but high-consequence systems.
Outputs
- Governance and authority assessment
- Evidence gaps and remediation options
AI Feasibility and Integration Roadmaps
Before building or buying AI, we determine whether it is economically and operationally justified. This includes opportunity sizing, workflow fit, implementation constraints, and realistic delivery timelines. Where appropriate, we then provide an integration roadmap that sequences tools, data work, governance controls, and operating model changes.
- Feasibility assessment: value, constraints, data, risk, and adoption friction
- Recommended tool and build approach with implementation sequencing
- Governance and compliance considerations appropriate to the domain
- A roadmap with phases, costs, and operational impact
Best fit for organisations that want to invest in AI with clear ROI logic rather than experimentation.
Technical Feasibility Assessment (Investor Due Diligence)
Duration: 5–7 working days
Scope Independent assessment of technical and architectural claims for investment decisions.
Outputs
- Pass, conditional, or fail opinion
- Risk matrix and explanatory memo
Best suited for VCs, family offices, and corporate venture teams.
Executive Briefing
Written briefing for senior leadership on governance exposure, authority risk, and decision implications.
Architecture Workshop
Facilitated architecture session focused on authority boundaries, governance seams, and audit survivability.
Outputs
- Written workshop summary
- Actionable governance recommendations
What We Do Not Do
- No free or informal reviews
- No compliance certification
- No transfer of operational responsibility
- No coding
How to Start
The default entry point is a paid engagement with a defined scope and fee. Contact us with details about your system, the governance questions you face, and the service you believe fits your needs. We will respond with a scoping proposal or clarifying questions.
Get in Touch