For AI Safety & Governance Teams
Your policies, your risk registers, your review committees, that is real governance, and it is doing real work. Triodian does not replace any of it. It sits beneath it and hands each of those artefacts something they cannot generate themselves: evidence from the running system.
It instruments selected AI decision streams, measures whether individual and aggregate behaviour stay within declared limits, routes legitimate novelty to human review, and produces evidence your risk function, auditors and board can independently examine.
Available now
Instrument an agreed decision stream.
Author its governance envelope in machine-readable form.
Establish baseline and aggregate metrics.
Receive a recurring governance report.
Record provenance in a tamper-evident ledger.
Exercise your escalation and human-review workflow against real events.
Not represented as available now
Validated semantic enforcement of arbitrary policy, non-bypassable hardware enforcement, and certified error-bound assurance are staged capabilities with their status stated openly, see the Status page before assuming anything on the roadmap.
Your controls, instrumented
You keep your framework, your committees, your registers and your review gates. Triodian gives each of them evidence generated by the running system instead of documents written about it.
| Your existing control | What Triodian adds |
|---|---|
| AI policy and principles | Machine-readable constraints for a selected use case |
| AI system inventory | Live evidence from the running decision stream |
| Risk classification and tiering | Operational limits and escalation thresholds |
| AI impact assessment | Measured behaviour against the approved appetite |
| Human oversight | Governed routing of novelty and exceptions to your reviewers |
| Model monitoring | Aggregate and semantic decision-stream analysis |
| Internal audit | Tamper-evident evidence and full provenance |
| Board reporting | Decision-useful trend and exception reports |
| Vendor and outsourced-model assurance | Independent evidence in place of vendor declaration |
Measurement · governance · enforcement
Detecting and quantifying behaviour: baselines, drift, divergence signals.
Software · deliverable now
Routing, escalating, admitting or withholding based on the measurement, under your workflow.
Software · deliverable now
Making a prohibited action impossible rather than caught.
Mode B in software now · semantic enforcement at the hardware rung ↗
A software service can measure and govern without providing non-bypassable enforcement. We will never blur that line in a proposal, and this page is your licence to hold us to it.
The pilot
Select one decision stream; establish complete mediation (Security); author the minimum vocabulary for that stream; agree exit criteria and what "decision-useful" means before any data flows.
Baseline, then live measurement; recurring governance report into your existing committee cadence; escalation workflow exercised on real events; pre-registered thresholds decide whether the signal earns trust, the same cheap-kill discipline applied to our own validation programme.
Advance toward enforcement or the hardware rung only after the agreed evidence thresholds are met; or stop, keeping everything below.
A pilot does not require modelling your organisation. It begins with the minimum vocabulary needed to express one use case, one policy, and one appetite boundary, typically days of authoring effort, not an enterprise-architecture programme. (Metamodel, reference, not prerequisite reading.)
On exit you retain: the constraint register · the evidence ledger · the baseline · the reports · in open formats
Sample artefacts
One page: appetite boundary, trailing position, exception count, trend arrow, plain-language finding.
Request the full sample →Constraint register extract, provenance chain for one decision, tamper-evidence verification result.
Request the full sample →A routed novelty event: what fired, who reviewed, what was decided, how it re-entered the ledger.
Request the full sample →Route, don't assemble
You should not have to assemble the solution from our architecture pages. State the problem in your language; each row is a door into the product family.
If none of these is your door, that is the first thing to tell us.
The composite reader
This page is written for the team that owns AI strategy and governance frameworks; the specialist who operationalises data ethics inside risk processes; the portfolio function that worries about aggregate behaviour, not single decisions; and the executive who must stand behind all of it at a board or before a regulator. If your team spans those perspectives, the pilot above was designed for the meeting where all of them are in the room.
The honest boundary
A pilot exercises Rules 4, 5 and 7 from day one; Rules 1 and 3 in full arrive with independent verification; the complete eight are the hardware rung's destination. The eight rules →
How this differs from what already ships, EQTY Lab, Fiddler, Cisco/Robust Intelligence, IBM watsonx.governance, told honestly.
How we compare →