Illustrative review scope
- System purpose and approved uses.
- Document access and retrieval boundaries.
- Ownership and change approval.
- Evaluation records and escalation procedures.
Illustrative sample
AI governance assessment: executive summary.
A fictional example showing how findings, evidence gaps, and next actions can be presented for leadership review.
Example only
This is a fictional scenario, not a client case study, completed assessment, certification, or claim of results. Findings, priorities, owners, and timelines below are illustrative.
Scenario and scope
Internal knowledge assistant pilot
A fictional organization is considering expanding an employee-facing assistant that retrieves internal policy documents and drafts answers. The example assumes a limited pilot; it does not authorize deployment.
Evidence considered in this scenario
- A draft use-case description and data-flow diagram.
- A pilot access list and policy documents.
- A small set of test prompts and results.
- Interviews with fictional business and technical owners.
No penetration test, independent model evaluation, or compliance audit is represented.
Illustrative findings
Three questions to resolve before expansion.
Confirm retrieval boundaries
Observation: The scenario includes an access policy but no test record demonstrating that restricted documents remain inaccessible.
Priority: Resolve before adding users.
Proposed action: Test role-based retrieval using approved test accounts and retain the results.
Assign expansion authority
Observation: The scenario identifies a pilot sponsor but leaves approval for wider use unspecified.
Priority: Resolve before an expansion decision.
Proposed action: Name the accountable approver and record the evidence needed for that decision.
Define response to a bad answer
Observation: Pilot users have a feedback channel, but escalation and feature-disable responsibilities are unclear.
Priority: Resolve before broader operational reliance.
Proposed action: Walk through a fictional incident and document the response path.
Illustrative action plan
Tie each action to evidence and a decision.
Within 10 working days
Proposed owner: Security lead.
Evidence: Retrieval boundary test results and a record of unresolved exceptions.
Decision supported: Whether the proposed access scope is acceptable.
Within 5 working days
Proposed owner: Business sponsor.
Evidence: Named expansion approver and documented decision criteria.
Decision supported: Who can approve or defer wider use.
Within 15 working days
Proposed owner: Operations lead.
Evidence: Escalation contacts and a completed response walkthrough.
Decision supported: Whether the team can respond to a material problem.
These timings demonstrate an action-plan format. They are not service delivery commitments.
Suggested executive decision
For this fictional scenario, defer expansion until the three evidence gaps are reviewed by the accountable decision-maker. Completion of the actions would support a new review; it would not by itself establish that the system is safe, compliant, or ready for every use.