AI GOVERNANCE INTELLIGENCE

Your AI governance, connected.

Connect AI systems, supporting evidence and the people responsible for decisions.

Request a walkthrough Explore the exampleExample

The sample example advances automatically, with time to read the source passage. Use the story checkpoints to revisit the evidence. It selects the Commercial Underwriting Assistant, follows a relationship to Example Model Services Agreement v3 and shows clause 4.2. Elena Park recorded Needs review because the Q2 provider review relied on agreement v2.

EXAMPLE DATA · SAMPLE INSURER

AI systems
Regulations
Policies
Controls
Evidence
Owners

01 · THE QUESTION

When someone asks about your AI, can your team show the evidence?

Policies, contracts, inventories and reviews often sit in different places. Bring the relevant records and responsible people into one conversation.

EXAMPLE QUESTION · SAMPLE

“Which AI systems support underwriting, and what changed since the last provider review?”

TODAY THE ANSWER IS ASSEMBLED FROM

The AI inventorya spreadsheet, owned by one teamAI SYSTEMS
Regulatory bulletins and obligationscompliance tracker, legal memosREGULATIONS
Internal policiesdocument library, several versionsPOLICIES
Review activitiescalendars, meeting notesCONTROLS
Review reports and vendor agreementsmodel-risk decks, the contracts systemEVIDENCE
The people accountableorg charts, inboxes, memoryOWNERS

Follow a question to its source and the person responsible for the next action in our sample example.

02 · FOLLOW THE SOURCE

See what a source change means for a review.

An updated agreement raises a question about an earlier review. Follow the source, the reviewer and the next action in this sample example.

AI SYSTEM · ENTITY RECORD

Commercial Underwriting Assistant

Sample Mutual Group · human underwriter retains the decision

02 JUL · PRIOR REVIEWQ2 provider review cited agreement v2.
12 SEP · CHANGED SOURCEAgreement v3 changed §4.2 to thirty days’ written notice.
14 SEP · HUMAN OBSERVATIONElena Park · Head of Underwriting recorded “Needs review.”

Elena Park recorded a review question after the agreement changed. Marcus Reed owns the follow-up.

Open cited agreement §4.2 Read the Q2 review →See Marcus Reed's action →

EXAMPLE RECORD · SAMPLE DATA

REVIEW REPORT· Q2 · 2 JUL 2026 · P.3EVIDENCE

Q2 provider review: Commercial Underwriting Assistant

SUBJECT: AI SYSTEM (ENTITY) · THIRD-PARTY MODEL

Cited source: Example Model Services Agreement v2 (dated 14 Mar 2026).

At this review, no action was recorded. The later v3 was not part of the Q2 review.

CONTRACT· VENDOR AGREEMENT · v3 · DATED 12 SEP 2026 · P.4

4. Service, model and data

4.1 Service levels. Unchanged from v2.

4.2 Model change notification. ~~Any change to the underlying model or substitution of the provider requires the Customer's prior written consent.~~ The provider may change the underlying model or substitute its service with 30 days' written notice to the Customer. NEW IN v3

4.3 Data handling. Unchanged from v2.

Human observation · Needs review: recorded by Elena Park, Head of Underwriting, 14 Sep 2026: the Q2 review relied on agreement v2.

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE · SAMPLE DATA · REVIEWER-RECORDED STATUS

This public example uses sample records. Start a private workspace to explore your own records. Explore the sample example →

03 · WHY THE CONNECTION MATTERS

Find the source. Review the change. Assign the next action.

IN FOCUS · 1 · CONNECTED CONTEXT

Follow the relationship from an agent to its supporting document, responsible person and review record. Keep the original source in reach.

Explore the capability

Explore the exampleWatch the illustrated relationship story, then read the source in the workspace.

HUMAN-LED ASSESSMENTS

Bring your question to the table.

Start with a paid, human-led AI Use-Case Readiness Assessment for one workflow. Review the evidence for your next decision, with accountable owners and next actions.

Explore the AI Use-Case Readiness Assessment

A platform subscription is optional. Scope, timing, fees and deliverables are agreed before work begins.

Review observationsEXAMPLE

SOURCE / QUESTION / NEXT STEP

Agreement v3 · §4.2Changed source

Q2 provider reviewCites v2

Human observationNeeds review

Source context stays with the human review.

A sample observation, with its source and follow-up.

INDUSTRIES

Governance questions
change by industry.

Explore lending, insurance, health administration, and manufacturing through their workflows, responsible people, and review questions.

Explore Industries

FOUR INDUSTRIES · DISTINCT DECISIONS

What does your team need to review?

Lending: Application summaries and customer communications
Insurance: Underwriting support and provider responsibilities
Health administration: Request context, routing rules and staff review
Manufacturing: Quality decisions and operational change

Illustrative questions, shaped around each industry’s work.

FRAMEWORK REFERENCES

Frameworks that inform the work.

Select references relevant to your scope, then connect them to policies, controls and evidence. Applicability and compliance conclusions require human review.

REGULATORY REFERENCEEU AI Act ↗Applicability depends on your role, AI use, EU connection, and applicable provisions and dates.
VOLUNTARY FRAMEWORKNIST AI RMF 1.0 ↗Voluntary guidance, not a legal compliance determination or endorsement.
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDISO/IEC 42001 ↗Reference does not establish conformity or certification. Standard text is not reproduced here.
INSURANCE REFERENCENAIC AI Model Bulletin ↗The model is not itself law or regulation. State adoption, wording, and applicability vary.

REQUEST A WALKTHROUGH

Talk through your AI governance question.

Tell us what your team needs to understand about its AI and where it needs help.

Or email us directlyanuj@anvaylo.com

How we approach information and responsibility

Human-led. In the example, a named reviewer records every status. Nothing on this page claims automatic detection.
Source handling agreed first. The public demonstration uses bundled synthetic records. Assessment source handling, storage and any AI processing are agreed before work begins.
Specialist questions go to specialists. Legal, accounting, actuarial and certification questions belong with qualified professionals.
Honest by default. Sample examples are clearly labelled.