Judgement, scoped and signed.

For: the head of legal, CISO, or chief people officer who has been told to prove staff are "AI literate" and handed no ruler. We are not a training provider: we make the ethics judgement about what "sufficient" actually means for your risk, against the competence standards we work from, then build the evidence pack that survives a regulator's question. Renewed annually, because the evidence goes stale and the obligation does not.

For: the board or audit committee that needs to know, in a language they already speak, whether the organisation is covered. We map the AI duties you carry against the competence you actually hold, and name the gaps as a quantified exposure, in the same risk language a board already uses for everything else it oversees, so it becomes a conversation the board can act on directly.

For: the general counsel, the leadership team, or HR. A qualified ethicist who reports to the person who owns the launch date has no way to act on what they find. We design the role with a reporting line, independence, and an escalation path, so the expertise you hired for actually gets to do the job.

Clear AI governance ownership is the single most reliable predictor of whether an AI project delivers: assign it properly and you are already ahead of the 48% of AI projects that miss their business objectives specifically because responsibility was never clearly assigned (Logicalis CIO Report 2026).