Skip to content

Enterprise AI Governance

Govern AI systems.
Keep the whole
picture connected.

From discovery to ongoing oversight, bring systems, requirements, assessments and evidence into one platform. Give each review context. Give each action an owner.

Request a platform walkthrough See how it connects
THE CONNECTED ESTATEIllustrative records · Sample Mutual Group
DISCOVER & REGISTER
AWSGoogle CloudMicrosoft AzureMicrosoft CopilotSalesforce AgentforceGitHub

Supported environments
+ systems your team registers

01 · REVIEWED INVENTORY

Know what you govern.

AI SYSTEMCommercial Underwriting Assistant
Business ownerElena Park
PurposeOwnerDependencies

A reviewed inventory gives every system a purpose, an owner and a place in your governance program.

HUMAN JUDGMENT, IN THE RECORD

01 / 06 AI & Agent Inventory

6 integrationsDiscover your AI estate 8 coverage areasReview applicable requirements One platformKeep governance connected

01 / Discover your AI estate

Start where
your AI runs.

Connect supported AI environments. Review what is discovered alongside systems registered by your teams, with scope, ownership and business purpose kept in view.

DISCOVERY INTEGRATION

AWS

Supported Bedrock and AgentCore resources.

Permission-scoped discovery

DISCOVERY INTEGRATION

Google Cloud

Agent Engine resources within the authorized scope.

Permission-scoped discovery

DISCOVERY INTEGRATION

Microsoft Azure

AI Foundry resources within the authorized scope.

AI Foundry adapter

DISCOVERY INTEGRATION

Microsoft Copilot

Copilot Studio agents.

Scope: Copilot Studio

DISCOVERY INTEGRATION

Salesforce Agentforce

Agent metadata in authorized Salesforce organizations.

Scope: Agentforce metadata

DISCOVERY INTEGRATION

GitHub

Repository and agent evidence within the authorized scope.

Scope: repository / agent evidence

FROM DISCOVERY TO INVENTORY
Permission-scoped discoveryHuman reviewReviewed inventory

Connector scope and permissions are confirmed as part of deployment.

02 / Regulatory coverage

Eight areas.
Context before checklists.

Bring regulatory sources into the review alongside internal policies, controls and evidence. Record applicability, rationale and open questions for the system being assessed.

Governance

  • NIST AI RMF

AI regulation

  • EU AI Act
  • Texas HB149 / TRAIGA
  • Colorado SB26-189

Employment

  • NYC Local Law 144
  • California employment automated-decision rules

California privacy

  • CCPA ADMT
  • Broader CCPA privacy evidence

Frameworks and regulatory coverage areas inform the review. Applicability and interpretation remain with qualified reviewers.

03 / Inside the platform

Six functions.
One connected way to work.

Each layer answers a different governance question. Shared systems, sources and owners carry the context from one review to the next.

01 / AI & Agent Inventory

What AI is in use, and who owns it?

Bring discovered and registered systems into a reviewed inventory. Keep business purpose, ownership, lifecycle and dependencies together so your governance program starts with context.

WHAT YOUR TEAM GETS

A system register your team can review, with accountable owners and connected dependencies.

Explore inventory
REVIEWED INVENTORY · SAMPLE RECORDS
EXAMPLE MUTUAL GROUP

AI systems, with ownership in view.

Commercial Underwriting AssistantElena Park
Policy Service CopilotNoah Williams
Claims Fraud Review ModelAvery Chen

02 / Policy & Obligation Mapping

Why does this requirement apply here?

Assess requirements in the context of each system. Connect internal policies, controls and evidence with the source, reviewer and rationale behind the relationship.

WHAT YOUR TEAM GETS

A reviewable crosswalk that keeps applicability, source versions and open questions visible.

Explore mapping
REQUIREMENT CROSSWALK · SCHEMATIC
REQUIREMENTApplicability and source
POLICYInternal policy context
CONTROLGovernance responsibility
EVIDENCESource, version and rationale

03 / Decision & Evidence Graph

What supports this decision?

Follow the relationship from a system or review to its supporting evidence. Keep source passages, versions and prior reviews within reach, so the reasoning can be inspected.

WHAT YOUR TEAM GETS

An evidence trail that carries the source and business context together.

Explore evidence
SOURCE PASSAGE · SAMPLE EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE MODEL SERVICES AGREEMENTv3
§4.2 Model change notification.
The provider may change the underlying model or substitute its service with 30 days' written notice to the Customer.
Agreement v3 · 12 Sep 2026Linked to review

04 / Risk & Review Workflows

What needs judgment, and who acts next?

Connect assessments, evidence gaps and reviewer judgment to owned follow-up. Record the decision, its conditions and the evidence needed to close an action or revisit a review.

WHAT YOUR TEAM GETS

An assessment and action record with named owners, visible status and supporting evidence.

Explore reviews
REVIEW & FOLLOW-UP · SAMPLE EXAMPLE
EVIDENCE GAP

The prior provider review cited agreement v2.

Needs review
RECORDED BY ELENA PARK · 14 SEP 2026

Complete hosted model provider review.

Marcus Reed · action ownerOpen

05 / Vendor & Contract Assurance

What changes when a supplier changes?

Review suppliers in the context of the systems that depend on them. Connect agreements, commitments, versions and open questions to the relevant control and follow-up.

WHAT YOUR TEAM GETS

Supplier evidence and contract changes kept with the affected system and review.

Explore vendors
VENDOR & CONTRACT · SAMPLE EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE MODEL SERVICES

Model change notification · §4.2

BEFOREv2

Prior written consent

AFTERv3

30 days' written notice

Source → system → review12 Sep 2026

06 / Oversight & Reporting

What needs leadership attention?

Bring portfolio context, review history and open actions into a scoped leadership view. Keep the owners and supporting evidence behind each priority available for inspection.

WHAT YOUR TEAM GETS

A leadership brief and action history grounded in the underlying governance records.

Explore oversight
LEADERSHIP BRIEF · SAMPLE EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE MUTUAL GROUP

What needs attention

The agreement changed after the Q2 provider review. Elena Park recorded a review question.

Marcus ReedFollow-up owner
Provider reviewOpen
Review → source → assigned action

04 / Connected intelligence in action

A source changes.
The context stays connected.

A sample underwriting example: the supplier agreement changes after a provider review. The source, review question and follow-up remain linked to the same AI system.

EXAMPLE MUTUAL GROUP · SAMPLECommercial Underwriting AssistantBusiness owner · Elena Park
EXAMPLE MODEL SERVICES AGREEMENT§4.2

Model change notification

BEFORE · AGREEMENT v2

Any change to the underlying model or substitution of the provider requires the Customer's prior written consent.

AFTER · AGREEMENT v3 · 12 SEP 2026

The provider may change the underlying model or substitute its service with 30 days' written notice to the Customer.

THE PRIOR REVIEW CITED v2Q2 provider review report · 2 Jul 2026
REVIEW OBSERVATION · 14 SEP 2026

What needs another look?

Needs review

The Q2 provider review relied on agreement v2. Agreement v3 changes §4.2 and needs a human provider review.

EP
Elena ParkHead of Underwriting · recorded the question
ASSIGNED FOLLOW-UP

Complete hosted model provider review

MR
Marcus ReedAction owner · due 8 Oct 2026
Open
WHAT THE CONNECTION MAKES POSSIBLE

See the changed source. Understand the review gap.
Know who owns the next action.

Explore the sample record

Your next step

Bring your AI estate
into the conversation.

Start with the systems, environments and governance questions that matter to your organization. Explore the supported scope for your first deployment.

Discuss your deployment Revisit the connected example