Design partner opportunity
Evidence Control
Turn one repeated AI release-evidence process into a controlled path from claim to artifact to test to approval—then prove a second reviewer can follow it.
Your starting point
A problem worth resolving.
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
The useful output
What you take away.
- 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
From your question to a decision.
- 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 to begin
- 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
A decision you can act on.
Customer work is controlled by a signed statement of work. Public pages provide information and do not create a service commitment.
Acceptance conditions
- 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.
Scope and limits
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
Next step
Explore a partnership around your workflow.
Tell us what is getting in the way, the outcome you want and your timeframe. A short description is enough to begin; leave sensitive material out of the first message.