AI Governance
Governance written after deployment does not survive review. This is a six-week evaluation of how your AI actually makes decisions — what it is allowed to decide, what evidence it leaves behind, and whether either would hold up in front of the regulator who governs you.
Policy Is Not Governance
Most AI governance is a document. It states principles, assigns a committee, and cannot answer the only question that matters under scrutiny: for this specific decision, what was the system permitted to do, what did it actually do, and where is the record? Regulators increasingly ask for decision-level auditability — EO 14028, NIST AI RMF, CMMC 2.0 — and a principles document does not answer at that resolution.
No written limit on what AI may decide alone versus what requires a human. Without a ceiling, the limit is whatever the model did last.
Outputs cannot be traced to the authority that permitted them. When asked why the system did that, the answer is a shrug.
Logs exist but were not designed as evidence. They do not answer a subpoena, and they do not reconstruct a decision months later.
Every recommended human-AI delegation traces to a regulatory citation — FAR/DFARS, NIST, agency policy, FCRA. Not a principle, a citation. That is the difference between a governance framework you can defend and one you can only circulate.
Six Steps · Fixed Scope
Time-boxed and fixed-price. Every step produces an artifact you keep, whether or not you continue to the next rung.
- 01Scope
Which systems, which decisions, which regulators. Narrow and real beats broad and theoretical.
- 02Model
Current state captured in Voyager across five domains — conceptual, operational, mission, engineering, transition.
- 03Evaluate
Each delegation tested against the regulation that governs it, not against best practice in the abstract.
- 04Map
Posture scored against NIST AI RMF, with gaps stated as findings rather than as concerns.
- 05Remediate
A prioritized roadmap — ordered by regulatory exposure, not by engineering convenience.
- 06Transfer
Capella/Arcadia MBSE artifacts your architecture team keeps and maintains after we leave.
Secure AI Systems Engineering
Governance tells you what to fix. Engineering is where it gets built.
Read about Secure AI Systems Engineering → · See the full COMET ladder →
Start With A Briefing
One email. One sentence about where your AI initiative stalled — or what your board asked that you could not answer. We respond inside two business days with a Briefing scope and a calendar window.