SOLUTIONS
An inventory and a policy are useful foundations. Operating control also needs named owners, bounded authority, current evidence and a response to change.
Consider an assistant connected to an internal knowledge base. The decision concerns a named team and permitted documents. A provider’s security page supplies product context; the organisation still needs evidence about its own access, handling and review arrangements.
Name the use, documents, affected people, system owner and person authorised to decide. Record which actions the assistant may prepare.
Trace one ordinary request and one restricted-document request. Inspect permissions, escalation, retention terms and the evidence needed to accept or reject the proposed use.
The authorised owner chooses a bounded test, more evidence, redesign or stopping. Assign open questions and a review trigger, such as changed data access or a new model provider.
The output is a scoped decision record: use, owner, evidence, unresolved questions, permitted next step and review trigger. This example illustrates preparation; it reports no customer outcome or compliance determination.
Inspect the governance engagement and deliverables →A board, auditor or works council asks for an AI Act position, but the company has no complete register. The sprint turns scattered information into a reasoned technical and organizational assessment and a practical roadmap.
Scope and price →An AI policy is ineffective if nobody can say who approves a new tool or keeps the register current. Governance Setup builds the roles, decision rights and evidence process around the organization.
Scope and price →The intended use, affected people and consequences determine the review boundary. The AI Act area lens is orientation, not legal advice or a system classification.
Bring the decision, the options and what is still uncertain. We can agree the next useful piece of work.
Discuss your question with Sten Franke →
ETHORITY®