Your AI passed testing. That’s the problem.
Evaluations tell you a system performed well on a fixed set of inputs. They don’t tell you it will hold under adversarial probing, silent instruction drift, or the scrutiny of a procurement review. We work on the gap between the two.
+ 4 provisional filings
AI Assurance Audit
When you’d bring us in: the eval set passes, but the system fabricates tool output, silently relaxes instructions in long contexts, or hedges where a null answer was required.
We review prompts, tool descriptions, agent scaffolds, and configurations against the failure-mode taxonomy from our research: Null-Result Asymmetry, Hermeneutic Drift, Source-Status Credibility Bias, Silent Instruction Relaxation. You get a written report with prioritized fixes.
Runtime Assurance
When you’d bring us in: the agent has tool access, traffic is real, and you need controls that survive an incident review, not a demo.
Input-side sensing, execution-side policy enforcement, anti-fabrication guards, and signed evidence. Paired defense: little-canary at the prompt boundary, suy-sideguy at process and network layer.
EU AI Act Readiness
When you’d bring us in: security, legal, procurement, or an auditor wants more than a policy PDF: they want findings, runtime controls, and artifacts a third party can verify.
We map your technical documentation to Annex IV, cross-walk it to ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF, and identify what is missing or likely to fail external challenge. The same evidence bundle defends in more than one jurisdiction.
● High-risk AI system obligations take effect 2 Aug 2026 (EU AI Act Annex III).
Zenodo 18867694
+ 4 provisional
For enterprise AI teams
Tell us what you’re shipping.
A short note on what’s in scope, what triggered the review, and what evidence already exists is the best place to start. We respond with a specific scoping question or a proposed engagement shape, not a calendar link.