AI risk assessment and classification
We classify every model against the risk tiers defined in global regulation, map the statutory obligations each tier triggers, and document the controls that satisfy them.
Government
AI the state can answer for.
Governance, risk, and assurance for public-sector AI, ensuring every automated decision is documented, overseen, and defensible before the citizens, auditors, and institutions it affects.
ISO 27001 Certified · ISO IEC 42001 Aligned · GDPR Aligned · Ghana Data Protection Act 2012
National Oversight and Accountability Framework
Public-sector AI is accountable AI. We build the assurance that makes it deployable.
AI that touches a citizen carries the obligations of the state behind it. Any automated system that decides eligibility, verifies identity, or releases a payment is classified, under every major regulatory regime, as high risk. A high-risk system may be deployed only when it is backed by documented risk assessments, human oversight, traceable operational choices, and evidence a compliance auditor can verify.
We build that assurance into the architecture rather than bolt it on. Every model is documented, evaluated, and monitored. Every automated choice is logged and explainable. Every deployment is mapped to the statutory standards a government answers to, so the AI serving citizens can be defended before parliaments, courts, and the people it affects.
What We Deliver
Assurance across the life of the system.
Model evaluation and rigorous testing
We test models for accuracy, robustness, and latent failure modes before deployment and on every material update, including red-team testing for vulnerabilities.
Population bias and fairness auditing
We measure outcomes for disparate impact across the populations a government serves, with fairness audits calibrated to regional demographics rather than imported baselines.
Enforceable human oversight and control
We define the boundaries where a human must decide, and engineer the checkpoints that hold automated systems under human authority. Access and identity controls keep those gates binding and auditable.
Decision transparency and contestability
We make automated decisions explainable to the citizens they affect, and give them a traceable route of appeal, so anyone subject to an automated choice can understand it and challenge it.
Continuous baseline monitoring and incident response
Deployed systems are monitored in real time for data drift, performance degradation, and emerging bias. The moment behavior departs from the assured baseline, the anomaly surfaces.
Audit-ready evidence compilation
The system compiles the documentation a conformity assessment, agency audit, or legislative inquiry requires: model schemas, evaluation metrics, execution logs, and data provenance.
Autonomous agentic system governance
Where agents execute workflows, we extend the same assurance to intercept cascading failures and resolve attribution gaps, requiring human authority at every irreversible step and logging every agent action for audit.
How We Engage
Start with certainty. Scale with control.
01
Assess
A fixed-scope assessment of your current AI estate or a planned deployment, classifying baseline risk, mapping statutory obligations, and identifying compliance gaps.
02
Establish
We put in place the controls, documentation, evaluation frameworks, and oversight checks the system needs to satisfy its obligations by design.
03
Operate and partner
We operate, monitor, and continuously improve the service as your long-term delivery partner while building the capacity of your team to share operation over time.
Procurement ready. We operate entirely within your governance, security, and institutional accountability requirements.
Sovereign Governance Frameworks
Governance the state owns.
State-owned frameworks
Governance models, risk parameters, and evaluation criteria align with national legislation and the international bars the state elects to clear. Authority over the operating rules stays with the government.
Localized evidence retention
Model documentation, validation results, and transaction-level logs reside in-country under state jurisdiction, available to national auditors and oversight bodies on your terms.
Demographic calibration
Risk and fairness thresholds are set against the demographics, languages, and conditions of the people the state serves, established at scoping and maintained over time.
Sustained internal capacity
We operate and improve the system alongside your team and build their skills to share management over time, so the capability transfers rather than locking you to a provider.
Regional Calibration Metrics
Assurance calibrated to the people you serve.
An AI system validated against another region's population is unassured for yours. A fairness audit run against imported demographic baselines, or a benchmark drawn from a language it was never built for, issues a passing mark while failing the citizens in front of it.
We assess, test, and assure models against the demographics, languages, and operating conditions of the populations a government serves, drawing on our regional research and datasets while aligning with the international standards that define modern digital public infrastructure.
Regulatory Compliance and Framework Alignment
Aligned to the standards your oversight bodies recognize.
ISO IEC 42001
We map AI management workflows to the international standard for AI management systems, turning organizational policy into auditable, certifiable practice.
NIST AI Risk Management Framework
Risk profiling is structured across the framework's Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage functions, keeping mitigation methodical, transparent, and open to third-party review.
EU AI Act and national regimes
For models in high-risk scopes, we align system metadata with the data-governance, logging, and human-oversight mandates these standards set, and harmonize them with local law including the Ghana Data Protection Act 2012 and GDPR.
Verifiable evidence accumulation
Every compliance claim rests on evidence rather than assertion: evaluation ledgers, model provenance records, and operational logs ready for conformity review.
Who We Work With
Who we work with
Digital government units and line ministries
Operational teams integrating automated systems into citizen services that must satisfy statutory requirements before going live.
Public procurement authorities
Institutional bodies evaluating and acquiring advanced software systems that require independent, empirical validation of the liabilities the state will absorb.
Audit institutions and legislative oversight bodies
Offices responsible for holding automated state actions to account, requiring complete data trails and explainable decision logs.
Data protection authorities and regulators
Statutory institutions setting and enforcing the operating criteria that public-sector data loops and models must satisfy.
Central banks and multilateral agencies
Financial and developmental bodies requiring fully assured, non-discriminatory AI systems within regulated environments and funded public programs.
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about public-sector AI assurance
Do you assure AI systems that your organization did not build?+
Yes. We independently evaluate and assure AI systems regardless of origin. This includes commercial vendor products and legacy software applications that a government has already procured or deployed, delivering objective reporting on operational thresholds and compliance gaps.
What specific standards do your governance systems align to?+
We align completely with ISO IEC 42001 for institutional AI management systems, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework for core risk methodologies, and legal frameworks including the EU AI Act, the Ghana Data Protection Act 2012, and GDPR.
Is standard government AI legally classified as high risk?+
Any algorithmic system that determines citizen eligibility, verifies resident identity, handles sovereign payment disbursements, or restricts access to essential public utilities falls within high-risk regulatory definitions and requires documented mitigation and oversight before public release.
How do your models audit for algorithmic bias within our region?+
We test model outcomes directly against the empirical demographics of the population the state serves. By calibrating our audits to local data matrices rather than imported baselines, the fairness metrics reflect the citizens the platform affects.
Who retains ownership of the compiled governance evidence?+
The state retains absolute ownership. The governance framework, policy parameters, evaluation datasets, and immutable decision logs belong exclusively to the government, stored securely within your jurisdiction and accessible only on your terms.
Can your architecture govern autonomous AI agents or just static models?+
We extend full assurance to complex agentic ecosystems. The platform bounds autonomous agent behaviour, enforces human authorization gates at irreversible milestones, and logs every transition state to resolve attribution gaps and prevent cascading failures.
What happens after the system build is complete?+
We operate, monitor, and continuously improve the service as your long-term delivery partner, and build the capacity of your team to share operation over time. You are never locked out of your own system, and never left to run it alone.
Deploy AI your government can defend.
Request an assessment. We classify the risk across your planned deployment, map the statutory obligations you carry, and build the evidence that makes the system defensible. When the fit is established, we move to formal scoping.