Design partner opportunity
Evidence Control
Start with a manual release audit. If the same work keeps coming up, explore a tool that helps another reviewer follow each claim back to its source, test and approval.
Your starting point
Would this help?
This is a fit when
- A team with a repeated AI release-evidence process already observed in practice
- A bounded reviewer workflow that can be represented with explicit identities and fail-closed gates
When another approach is a better fit
- A request for generic enterprise governance or accreditation
- No prior audit, repeated workflow, reviewer owner, or permission to block invalid evidence
What we’re planning
Proposed outcomes.
- 01Claim-to-artifact-to-test-to-approval map
- 02Minimum schema and import/export contract
- 03Gate configuration, review queue, and release pack
- 04Invalid/missing evidence tests and retention/access record
- 05Second-reviewer run and limitation/support register
Where this stands
Built so far. What comes next.
A completed manual NF-B audit or equivalent discovery must first prove that a repeated workflow exists and is worth operationalising.
Existing basis
- A developed internal claim register, artifact manifest, gate, review, and release-pack discipline
- Fail-closed evidence and controlled-disclosure patterns
- Reusable minimum-schema and acceptance templates
Evidence still needed
- A real manual external audit or equivalent repeated workflow
- A minimum cross-customer schema proved against the bounded use case
- Second-reviewer completion and repeatability evidence
Working together / 6–10 weeks after gate
How we’ll work together.
Work through a manual audit first. Use it to find out whether there’s a repeated review job worth turning into a tool, before committing to product development.
The project steps in detail
- 01Map the manual workflow and confirm repeated value.
- 02Freeze the minimum schema, integration boundary, gates, and reviewer roles.
- 03Configure the bounded claim-to-release path.
- 04Test valid, missing, stale, and altered evidence with a second reviewer.
- 05Accept, remediate, extend, or stop.
What we need before work starts
Before starting
- A prior manual audit or equivalent mapped workflow
- One release type and named technical/review owners
- Approved file/API-export boundary and retention rules
- Acceptance that invalid evidence blocks promotion
Scope and handover
What we agree before starting.
We agree the work in a signed statement of work before starting. This page explains the offer; the signed agreement sets the commitment.
How you accept the handover
- One repeated release type maps claims to artifacts, tests, decisions, and approvals.
- Missing, stale, altered, or invalid evidence fails closed.
- A second reviewer completes the bounded queue and release pack from the documented workflow.
- Export, retention, access, limitations, and support behavior match the signed matrix.
What this work covers
Discovery follows a manual audit; productisation begins only after the repeated-workflow entry gate.
One repeated release-evidence process, one minimum schema, file or bounded API-export integration, and one second-reviewer workflow. Not a generic governance or accreditation platform.
ERAIS's internal evidence controls do not yet establish a cross-customer governance platform, accreditation product, or compliance certification.
Offer source and review record
Talk to us
What’s getting in the way?
Tell us what keeps going wrong and what you need to do once it’s sorted. We’ll come back with what we think could help.