Intake and risk tiering
A consistent intake process captures purpose, affected populations, decision impact, data dependencies, human oversight, and operational context. Risk tiering then determines the depth of assessment and approval required.
Governance advisory
Make responsibilities, risks and approvals clear.
We help technology and AI teams turn agreed requirements into working procedures: who decides, which risks need review, what records to keep and when to escalate. Start with one program or a defined part of an existing framework.
The assignment
What you receive. What we need.
- Deliverable
- An agreed governance playbook, responsibility matrix, control-and-evidence matrix, working templates and an implementation action list.
- Customer inputs
- Program objectives, existing policies and processes, applicable requirements, current risk records and access to the responsible people.
- Example acceptance criteria
- Each agreed decision and control has a named role, procedure and required record; the responsible team has walked through the arrangements and recorded unresolved issues.
- Scope boundary
- Governance advisory, not software implementation, a legal opinion or an independent assessment of the arrangements we helped create. Technical and specialist reviews are scoped separately.
- Effort and price
- Quoted after agreeing the material, access, stakeholders, deliverables and deadline.
A typical roadmap
From unclear ownership to working governance.
Enter at the stage your program needs. The sequence is tailored to scope and risk, with agreed responsibilities and deliverables at each stage.
- 01
Define the purpose
Agree what the program should achieve, its intended uses and the decisions governance must support.
Output: Scope and measurable objectives
- 02
Establish the starting point
Review existing arrangements, applicable requirements and the most important gaps.
Output: Current-state review and priorities
- 03
Assign responsibility
Name who recommends, reviews, approves, escalates and accepts risk within their authority.
Output: Responsibility matrix and decision rights
- 04
Define controls and evidence
Connect each agreed control to an owner, a review point and the records needed to check it.
Output: Control-and-evidence matrix
- 05
Put it into practice
Walk through the procedures with the people who will use them and resolve practical gaps.
Output: Working templates and action register
- 06
Monitor and adapt
Set review intervals and change triggers; track actions, selected measures and unresolved risks.
Output: Monitoring plan and reassessment triggers
Helping establish or operate this framework is advisory work. Any independent assessment of it must be performed by a suitably separate assessor, not Elvaris assessing its own design.
Named governance decisions
Operating models identify who recommends, reviews, approves, challenges, and monitors. Release gates connect those decision rights to required evidence so governance functions as a repeatable process.
Human oversight and monitoring
Controls address consequential decisions, override authority, escalation, drift triggers, and evidence retention. The design makes human-in-the-loop claims observable and testable.
Engagement outputs
Designed for decision, remediation, and audit.
- Consistent AI use-case intake records
- Documented risk review and escalation procedures
- Named decision rights and release gates
- Testable human-oversight controls
Related Services