Bounded service
AI Evidence & Release Audit
Reconstruct one AI release end to end—what it claims, what it used, what failed, what changed, and why the decision should be release, remediate, or hold.
Your starting point
A problem worth resolving.
This is a fit when
- A model or AI feature approaching an internal release decision
- A team that cannot currently connect a claim to exact data, model, config, and evaluation identities
- A failed or disputed release that needs technical reconstruction
- A repeated evidence process that may later justify Evidence Control co-development
When another approach is a better fit
- A request for legal, clinical, privacy, safety, or regulatory certification
- A request to hide failures, rewrite thresholds after results, or endorse an unsupported claim
- A release whose model, data, or software rights cannot be reviewed
- An organisation unwilling to name owners or preserve material evidence
The useful output
What you take away.
- 01Technical decision record and bounded claim register
- 02Model, data, configuration, dependency, and artifact inventory
- 03Evaluation, failure, change, and release reconstruction
- 04Technical security/data-evidence review and finding register
- 05Release, remediate, or hold pack plus a reusable minimum evidence schema
Working together / 2–4 weeks
From your question to a decision.
- 01Freeze the release, audit boundary, claims, owners, and decision question.
- 02Inventory identities, artifacts, tests, changes, failures, and approvals.
- 03Test traceability, comparability, integrity, and missing-evidence behavior.
- 04Review findings with owners and record remediation or objection.
- 05Issue the technical release, remediate, or hold decision pack.
What we need to begin
- One named release, candidate, or release decision
- Access to relevant claims, configurations, evaluations, failures, and change records
- Named technical and release owners
- A protected review environment and agreed retention/destruction rules
- Acceptance that hold can be the correct technical recommendation
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
- The agreed release boundary, claims, identities, and evidence inventory are complete or explicitly missing.
- Every material finding has an owner, severity, evidence link, and disposition.
- The release, remediate, or hold recommendation is reconstructable from the audit record.
- The customer accepts the technical decision or records unresolved objections.
Scope and limits
Technical evidence and release reconstruction only. No legal opinion or privacy, clinical, safety, cyber, engineering, or regulatory certification.
An available founder-led audit is not an accreditation product or automated governance platform.
Offer source and review record
Questions
Before you enquire.
Does the audit certify compliance?
No. This is a technical evidence audit and release recommendation, not legal, privacy, safety, cyber, or regulatory assurance.
Must the customer use ERAIS?
No. The audit can reconstruct a release built with any sufficiently inspectable model and toolchain.
What if evidence is incomplete?
The result is hold, with the missing evidence and remediation path made explicit.
Next step
Bring one decision worth resolving.
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.