Board-ready AI governance for regulated financial services. A platform, a live regulatory knowledge graph, two assessment frameworks — every finding cited to primary regulatory text.
That is the question the supervisor, the institutional allocator, and the reinsurer are all asking the same way. The difference between “the AI says” and “the regulation says” — with every finding cited to primary regulatory text.
enterprise procurement processes now require evidence of AI management-system certification before allocation.
ISO 42001 · published Dec 2023 · cited globally within 18 monthsThe second-line team running it, the boutique consultant brought in to help, the big firm auditing the lot — all three are building on the same stack: a spreadsheet, a senior person's regulatory memory, and six-to-eight weeks of expensive time. It does not compound, for any of them.
Partner-grade time spent reading regulation, not interpreting findings. One, maybe two of these per partner per quarter.
No shared regulatory intelligence. Answers vary by who's holding the pen, and the report is impossible to standardise across the practice.
Static PDF delivered, findings lose momentum within a month, no annual reassessment cadence. One-off revenue with nowhere to go.
Clients operate across UK, EU, US and APAC. Your spreadsheet does not. Cross-jurisdiction findings get scoped out, not scoped up.
The platform is the same in every case — same knowledge graph, same frameworks, same board-ready output. What changes is who's holding the pen. Pick the model that matches the engagement you have today.
For group risk, compliance, and internal-audit teams who want to own their AI governance posture rather than outsource it. Licensed to your organisation, run by your people.
For organisations that want the assessment done by the team who built the platform. Poview.ai consultants conduct the engagement; you keep the platform afterwards for remediation and reassessment.
For Risk Advisory partners and AI-practice leads who want to license the platform and deliver the engagement to their own clients. Per-client workspaces, your logo, your narrative voice.
AIssure is the tool, not the service. Your consultants are still in the chair. We just took the spreadsheet out from under them.
Two assessment frameworks shipped on the platform — both calibrated for regulated financial services and both extensible to your control library.
14,000+ provisions and 250,000+ connections ingested from primary regulation across eight jurisdictions — every answer the platform gives links back to the source paragraph.
Per-question AI verdicts grounded in the knowledge graph, with citation guard. Consultants approve and sign every score before the report ships.
The platform produces the same recurring visuals every board pack opens on — the live knowledge graph beneath it, the maturity score, the jurisdictional heatmap, the risk-weighted remediation plan. Real screens, redacted, watermarked.
The one number, and the eight domains underneath it, every board paper opens on.
Where the risk concentrates, functionally and geographically — red below the line, green above it.
Ranked by gap × log₁₀(regulations + 1), target maturity 4.0. The retainer hook for ongoing posture.
14,000+ provisions across 13,700+ regulations, 250,000+ connections, eight jurisdictions. Every finding addressable back to the clause.
The knowledge graph is the part that's actually hard to build, and the part competitors can't copy quickly. It's what lets your senior people defend findings in a regulator's office.
Structured from the actual text of FCA handbooks, EU regulation, ISO standards, and APAC supervisory materials. Cross-referenced, versioned, citation-backed.
Assurance only means something if the assessor is independent of what's being assessed. AIssure forms an independent opinion over your AI governance — it never runs, monitors, or supplies the systems it assesses. That's the seat the monitoring vendors structurally cannot occupy.
AIssure consumes your monitoring evidence and issues an independent, cited opinion over it. It doesn't build or run your controls — because a firm that operates a control cannot objectively attest to it.
PRA SS1/23 expects independent validation within model risk management, including of ongoing monitoring; and independent, external assurance of this kind sits beyond a firm's three lines of defence. AIssure productises a line item the supervisor already expects to exist.
Every published finding is rendered through a pinned, deterministic model — so a citation-grade opinion can be reproduced and defended at a later inspection, not lost when a frontier API version is retired.
A point-in-time report is only as current as the law it cites. Because the knowledge graph versions primary regulation across eight jurisdictions, AIssure tells you what in your last assessment just changed when a regulation moves — regulatory drift, not model drift.
A compliant model silently becomes non-compliant because the rules changed — even though its own statistics never moved. It's the drift nobody else is watching, and it maps exactly onto the knowledge graph.
When a regulation moves — as the EU AI Act's GPAI obligations did when they took effect in August 2025 — you learn what changed and which of your prior findings are affected. Not a feed to watch; an alert that arrives.
AIssure sits over whatever monitoring stack you already have, consuming its evidence and issuing an independent, cited opinion — non-cannibalising, so your existing tools become integration partners, not rivals.
Two frameworks ship with the licence. The Maturity Assessment is your way in. The ISO Deep Dive is the engagement you sell back to the same client twelve months later.
Two frameworks ship on the platform. The Maturity Assessment is your way in. The ISO Deep Dive is the engagement you sell back to the same client twelve months later.
Six months later: the same client, the ISO Deep Dive. CRITICAL questions weighted 4×; the report ships externally validatable.
Senior time clusters at the start and the end. The middle is operated by a junior consultant supervised through the platform. That is the leverage shift.
Firm profile, scope auto-tailored to jurisdictions and product lines.
Guided sessions with client stakeholders; evidence capture in-platform.
Automated scoring; consultant review; every citation verified.
Board-ready PDF with your branding, narrative voice and remediation matrix.
Owner-assigned actions tracked to closure. Annual reassessment optional.
The platform is the same in every delivery model — whether your second-line team is running it, poview.ai consultants are running it for you, or a licensed consulting firm is running it for their clients. The list below is what ships in the box.
Per-client workspaces with hard data isolation. Your consultants, your clients, no cross-tenant access.
Multi-turn AI chat for ad-hoc questions during engagements. Citation-backed answers, not RAG-over-PDF guesses.
Maturity (96Q) and ISO Deep Dive (275Q). All eight domains. All weighting. Both jurisdictions.
Your logo, your narrative voice, your delivery. Auto-generated structure, manually finalised by your team.
UK, EU, US, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, South Africa, China. Updated quarterly. Versioned so old findings remain reproducible.
Owner assignment, due dates, evidence attachment. The retainer hook that turns one-off audits into recurring revenue.
Scored verdicts against every requirement, with confidence ratings and citation trails. Your consultant signs off.
Through pilot and the first three live engagements. Real onboarding, not a Notion handover.
Three outcomes that fall out of the engagement shape changing from contractor-grade to product-grade. Each one matters to both audiences — a Risk Advisory P&L and a second-line CRO are measuring different things, but the underlying shift is the same.
Six-to-eight senior weeks become five mixed-seniority weeks. Same regulatory intelligence regardless of who's holding the pen.
Findings stay live, not buried in a PDF. Remediation tracked. Quarterly reassessment runs against the same baseline.
The platform's ISO Deep Dive frames the audit against ISO/IEC 42001, 23894 and 38507 — the certification path your clients are now being asked for.
The conformity work runs to months either way. The procurement gate is a capital question that is open today. Two drivers, both date-independent.
The procurement gate is now a capital question. Institutional allocators, RFPs and reinsurers are writing ISO 42001 evidence requirements into due-diligence today. Firms with a defensible answer in 2026 are not the ones marked down in 2027.
The cost framing is asymmetric. One fixed-price engagement, versus the legal and remediation cost of a single supervisory action, or a failed allocator due-diligence. The comparison decides the buying conversation, not the price.
Prep time is not negotiable. Conformity assessments and technical documentation take multiple months regardless of which obligation date applies on which day.
Already enforced since Feb 2025 (prohibitions) and Aug 2025 (GPAI). Penalties reach €35M or 7% of global turnover. Not deferred.
Credit scoring, creditworthiness and most FS use-cases. EU institutions reached a political agreement on 7 May 2026 to defer. If not adopted before 2 Aug 2026, the original date applies.
RFPs and reinsurer questionnaires already cite ISO 42001 evidence. The gate is open regardless of when high-risk obligations bite.
Three pilot shapes, same shape on the platform. Pick the one that matches the engagement you have today — we'll handle the rest.
If the three success criteria land — time-to-report, stakeholder NPS, repeat intent — we move to a standard licence on terms agreed at pilot kick-off. No surprises, either side.
Book the working session →The questions a CRO, a procurement team, or an AI assistant asks about AIssure — answered plainly.
A point-in-time, regulator-defensible assessment of how an organisation governs its AI — packaged as a fixed-scope product rather than a bespoke consulting project. Unlike runtime monitoring platforms that watch models for drift, it produces a board-ready report in which every finding is traced to primary regulatory text.
Those are continuous, runtime governance platforms that monitor models in production. AIssure is the independent, point-in-time assessment and assurance engagement with a citation trail to primary regulatory text — a different job on a different shelf. It attests over your governance; it does not operate your controls.
AIssure delivers certification-readiness and assurance — the assessment that gets you ready. Accredited ISO/IEC 42001 certification itself is issued by accredited certification bodies (such as BSI, Schellman or A-LIGN). AIssure's language is deliberately 'certification-ready', not 'certified'.
The supervisory regimes that bind regulated finance: FCA SYSC, PRA SS1/23, MiFID II, Solvency II, the EU AI Act, DORA and POPIA, plus the ISO/IEC 42001, 23894 and 38507 standards — across eight jurisdictions (UK, EU, US, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, South Africa and China).
Regulatory drift is when a compliant model silently becomes non-compliant because the rules changed — even though the model's own statistics never moved. Because AIssure's knowledge graph versions the law across jurisdictions, it flags what in your last assessment is affected when a regulation moves.
Both. There are three delivery models: self-serve (your second-line team runs it in-house), run-for-you (poview.ai consultants run the engagement), and white-label (a risk-advisory firm licenses the platform and ships audits under its own brand).
No. AIssure is an independent attester — it consumes your monitoring evidence and forms an independent opinion over it, but it does not operate or monitor your models. Doing both would break the independence that professional assurance ethics require.
A full assessment runs about five weeks from kick-off to a board-ready report, with senior time clustered at the start and end. A first pilot is typically scoped at eight weeks end-to-end, including reporting.
A high-level, question-only session — 12 to 16 questions, no evidence to prepare — that gives you an initial read on your AI governance maturity and readiness. If it's useful, we scope the full engagement from there: the audit platform deployed and evidence-based assessments run, self-serve or consultant-supported.