AI Governance Diagnostic · United Kingdom

AI is making decisions inside your organisation. Can you prove you are in control?

AI is operating inside UK organisations faster than governance teams can keep up. Most cannot answer three questions.

Where is AI operating in your workflows?

What decisions is it taking independently?

How are those decisions controlled and evidenced?

That gap is now a liability.

A governance evidence artefact your board, insurer or regulator will accept.

01

Fixed Scope

A structured governance model. Same inputs. Same findings. Every time. No consultant interpretation.

02

Five-Section Report

Executive Summary, Risk Translations, Remediation Roadmap, Architecture Mapping, and DPIA Alignment.

03

Five Days

Delivered in days, not months. No platform. No integration. No ongoing contract.

04

Sector Coverage

Financial Services, Healthcare, Legal, and Recruitment and HR. The engine evaluates your decision flow.

Agentic systems plan, decide and act without direct human instruction.

When challenged, it is not the system that is accountable — it is the organisation, and the individuals responsible for it.

Regulators are aligned on one point. You must be able to evidence control of AI decisions, not just describe them. The FCA, ICO, CMA and DRCF have all issued guidance. Self-assessment is the only path. Most organisations cannot produce evidence an external party will accept.

CLEARANCE gives you the evidence you will be asked for.

Built for regulated UK organisations.

Financial Services Healthcare Legal Recruitment & HR Retail

One engagement. One report. One outcome: evidence.

This is not an assessment.

It is an evidence-producing governance diagnostic built from cross-regulatory analysis — ICO, FCA, CMA, DRCF — and mapped to real agentic workflows.

A deterministic, point-in-time diagnostic that finds the structural governance gaps in your agentic AI stack and tells you exactly what to fix, why it matters, and what to do next.

How It Works

01

Intake and Mapping

The intake captures where AI is operating inside your organisation — workflows, decision points, autonomy boundaries, data flows. You complete the form. We resolve any ambiguities on a short verification call before the engine runs.

02

Deterministic Gap Model

Your intake is run against a fixed-scope governance model. No maturity scoring. No opinion. The same inputs always produce the same outputs. The engine evaluates your deployment against structural governance gaps — every finding maps to a named regulatory obligation.

03

Evidence Artefact

You receive a five-section written report designed to be challenged and to stand up — to your board, your insurer, or your regulator. Delivered within five working days of a verified intake.

Five sections. One defensible artefact.

01

Executive Summary

Board-ready overview of governance posture and findings.

02

Risk Translations

Each gap in plain English. Regulatory, operational, and reputational consequence.

03

Remediation Roadmap

Prioritised actions: immediate, 30-day, 90-day. Named owner per sector.

04

Architecture Mapping

Three-plane governance diagnosis. Decision, Governance, and Verification planes.

05

DPIA Alignment

Data protection impact assessment mapped to UK GDPR obligations. ICO-aligned.

Any UK organisation with a live agentic AI deployment and no dedicated governance team.

Mid-market or SME. Regulated sector. No internal AI governance resource.

Deploying AI in hiring, legal, advisory, risk or operational workflows.

Asked to evidence governance to a regulator, insurer or enterprise client.

Deployment is live or in active pilot. Decisions are already being made.

What we do not do.

We do not build or fix your AI systems.

We do not provide legal advice.

We do not offer ongoing retainers or advisory relationships.

We do not consult beyond the fixed scope of one engagement.

One engagement. One report. One outcome: evidence.

Built to solve a structural problem.

AI is making decisions inside organisations faster than those organisations can evidence control. CLEARANCE fills that gap.

There is no single rulebook. Four UK regulators have issued guidance. Self-assessment is the only path — and most SMEs cannot produce evidence an external party will accept.

CLEARANCE is a fixed-scope, deterministic diagnostic that produces a repeatable, defensible governance artefact in days. Not months. Not a retainer. One engagement, one report, one outcome.

About the Founder

I spent twenty-three years watching organisations document how their systems were supposed to work. When I started looking at agentic AI, I saw the same problem at scale.

CLEARANCE is what I built to fix that.

I am a systems analyst by training. My background is operational — retail, financial services and government — across business analysis, process modelling and requirements definition. The work was always the same: understand how systems behave under pressure, not how they are documented.

The gap library and governance architecture were built from first principles and verified against a certified test suite. Engagements are limited and scoped — not open-ended.

Get in touch.

Intro calls and early-stage engagements. No sales process. A direct conversation about whether CLEARANCE is the right fit.

Location United Kingdom
Availability Intro calls and early-stage engagements

CLEARANCE evaluates governance structure only. It does not assess AI model performance, output accuracy, or system safety. The report identifies structural governance gaps — it does not determine whether a regulatory breach has occurred.

This is what one finding looks like.

One gap. One citation. One consequence. One required action. Every finding in a CLEARANCE report follows this structure — deterministic, named, and defensible.

FS-G14  ·  Financial Services Critical

No named SM&CR accountable individual for AI decision system

SM&CR Senior Managers Regime FCA Principle 3 DUAA 2025 UK GDPR Art 22C

The FCA expects every material AI activity to be owned by a named Senior Manager in their Statement of Responsibilities. No AI system making client-facing financial decisions should be unowned. The absence of a named owner is evidenced from your own governance documents. The FCA does not need to observe a failure. The gap exists and is provable the moment a supervision visit begins.

Update the relevant Statement of Responsibilities immediately. Name the accountable Senior Manager. Document the oversight protocol. Add AI systems to the Management Responsibilities Map.

This is not a consultant's opinion. It is a deterministic finding derived from your intake. Every finding maps to the obligation that created it.

Every finding follows the same structure.

CLEARANCE does not produce recommendations. It produces findings — each one tied to a specific regulatory obligation, a specific control that is absent, and a specific action that closes it permanently.

The same intake always produces the same findings. No consultant interpretation. No subjectivity. If a gap fires, the trigger condition was met — evidenced from what your organisation told us about its own system.

A full engagement covers multiple sectors and produces findings across five governance layers. Every finding is structured this way. The report is designed to be handed to a board, an insurer, or a regulator without further explanation.