🏛️ AI Governance & Sovereignty
From policy to proof: AI governance you can audit
Governments and large enterprises don’t buy “a model”. They buy a governed system: measurable, auditable, reversible. This page summarizes the Geniuspace® operating model: roles, controls, evidence and review cadence.
🛡️ Security & access control
📜 Audit trail & evidence
☁️ On‑prem / VPC / Air‑gapped / Edge
🧾 Procurement / RFP
Executive summary
Goal: move from “compliance claims” to compliance evidence (artifacts + tests + logs + reviews).
- Policies: data, models, security, usage, incidents, reversibility.
- RACI: who decides, who executes, who audits, who approves.
- Controls: access, exfiltration, supply chain, red‑team, monitoring.
- Evidence: reproducible evaluations, reports, logs, change tickets.
Note: templates and checklists are operational starting points; legal/security validation is required for your specific context.
Operating model (lifecycle)
Governance follows the lifecycle: scope → design → evaluation → deployment → operations → continuous improvement.
Baseline controls
- Identity & access (RBAC, MFA, least privilege) + access logs.
- Data (classification, minimization, encryption, retention) + DLP.
- Models (inventory, licenses, dependencies, SBOM) + risk management.
- Safety (guardrails, red‑team, jailbreak tests) + kill switch.
- Observability (latency, quality, drift, cost) + alerting.
- Incidents (runbooks, timelines, post‑mortems) + notification.
RACI (procurement-friendly example)
A procurement-ready RACI makes accountability explicit and auditable.
| Decision / activity | R | A | C / I |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use case selection & success criteria | Program/Product | Sponsor | C: Business · I: Procurement |
| Data classification & legal basis | DPO + Data Owner | DPO | C: Security · I: Business |
| Architecture (on‑prem/VPC/edge) & integrations | IT/MLOps | CIO/CTO | C: Security · I: Procurement |
| Evaluation & go/no‑go thresholds | AI/MLOps | Program | C: Business · I: Sponsor |
| Security controls (DLP, secrets, segmentation, red‑team) | CISO/Security | CISO | C: IT · I: DPO |
| Incidents & communications | Security + Ops | Program | C: Legal · I: Sponsor |
| Exit plan (reversibility) & termination | IT + Procurement | Procurement | C: Legal · I: Sponsor |
Governance cadence
- Weekly: incidents, drift, cost, performance (Ops/MLOps).
- Monthly: compliance review, risk backlog, model/data changes.
- Quarterly: internal audit, red‑team, vendor review, exit plan.
Possible frameworks to map against (depending on jurisdiction): GDPR, EU AI Act, NIS2, NIST AI RMF, Japan APPI, China PIPL/DSL/CSL… to be tailored to scope and data sensitivity.
FAQ
Why publish a governance page?
Because “AI governance”, “auditability”, “sovereign AI” and “RFP” queries signal high institutional intent. This page becomes an entry point that routes to evidence (pack, briefing, case studies).
What do you deliver in a governance engagement?
An operating model (RACI), a baseline of controls, an evaluation suite, incident procedures, and a procurement-ready set of requirements (SLA, security, exit plan).
Does this work with open‑weights LLMs / SLMs?
Yes. Governance targets the system (data, access, tests, logs, operations). Model choices (open/closed, LLM/SLM) are framed by risk, constraints and sovereignty.