Continuous Assurance

AI Assurance & Governance — confidence for your board, your regulators, and your customers.

We audit AI systems, define usage policy, and put continuous risk monitoring in place — so governance is something you demonstrate, not something you scramble for.

See the case study ↓
100%Systems inventoried*
QuarterlyRe-audits
3Frameworks mapped
All evals passing
elhaa · assurance layer
1AI System Registered
2Risk Classification Engine
3Audit & Red-Team Queue
4Policy & Monitoring Dashboard
EU AI Act mapped
What's included

A complete assurance layer, not just a checklist.

Audits, policy, and monitoring — the full system that turns governance into evidence you can hand over.

Independent AI system audits

Assessment of accuracy, robustness, security, and failure modes — on systems we built or anyone else did.

02

Red-teaming & bias testing

Structured attempts to break the system and surface unfair or unsafe behaviour.

03

Governance frameworks

AI usage policy, approval processes, and accountability mapped to named owners.

04

Regulatory readiness

Gap analysis and documentation aligned to the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, and ISO/IEC 42001.

05

Continuous risk monitoring

Dashboards and alerts for drift, misuse, incidents, and policy violations.

Engineering deep dive

How it's actually run.

The risk-classification topology and the policy-as-code pattern — not a slide about “best practices.”

1AI System Registered in Inventory
2Automated Risk Classification Engine
3Audit, Red-Team & Bias Testing Queue
4Policy Enforcement & Continuous Monitoring
risk-classifier.ts
// elhaa Risk Classification Engine
const risk = await elhaaGovernance.classify({
  system: aiSystemId,
  frameworks: ['EU-AI-Act', 'NIST-AI-RMF'],
  autoSchedule: 'quarterly-audit'
});
Case study

Governance Readiness Before Enterprise Sales

B2B SaaS · Series C software company

The challenge

Deals kept stalling at the security-review stage: prospects asked about AI governance and got silence, and a blank questionnaire cost at least one signed contract.

The approach

We inventoried every AI system in use, risk-rated them, wrote a proportionate usage policy, audited the two customer-facing systems, and stood up quarterly risk reporting.

System inventory → risk classification → audit & red-team → policy pack → quarterly monitoring report
100%AI systems inventoried
2Customer-facing systems audited
6wkTo first audit report

*Illustrative example based on a representative engagement.

The difference

The typical approach vs the elhaa approach.

Typical approach
With elhaa
Posture
“We think it's fine”
“Here's the report” — evidence on demand
Scope
Only official projects counted
Shadow AI inventoried and risk-rated too
Policy
60 pages nobody reads
Proportionate rules people actually follow
Cadence
Scramble before every audit
Continuous monitoring, quarterly reporting
How the engagement runs

Four steps from inventory to continuous assurance.

1

Inventory & assess

Catalogue every AI system in use — sanctioned or shadow — and rate its risk.

2

Set the rules

Draft policy and approval processes proportionate to each risk tier.

3

Test & remediate

Audit and red-team the high-risk systems; fix what the testing surfaces.

4

Monitor & report

Stand up continuous monitoring and a regular reporting rhythm to leadership.

How success is measured

Agreed in week one, on a dashboard by go-live.

Coverage

Systems inventoried

Share of AI in use that's catalogued and risk-rated.

Progress

Findings closed

Audit and red-team findings resolved, with time-to-close.

Culture

Policy adoption

Staff acknowledgement and approval-path usage rates.

Resilience

Incident response

Incidents detected, time to containment, lessons applied.

Works with your tools

Typical systems & standards.

EU AI Act mappingNIST AI RMFISO/IEC 42001Model cardsRed-team playbooksRisk registersYour GRC platformAudit-log pipelines
Who's involved

Small teams on both sides.

From elhaa
  • Lead auditorRuns system audits and red-team exercises.
  • Governance leadDrafts policy, approval paths, and accountability maps.
  • Monitoring engineerStands up drift, misuse, and incident dashboards.
From your side
  • Executive sponsorOwns AI risk at leadership level; receives reporting.
  • Legal & complianceReviews policy against your regulatory obligations.
  • System ownersOne per audited system, for access and remediation.
FAQ

Questions about AI Assurance & Governance.

Yes — independence is the point. We audit systems built in-house or by other vendors, and we're equally happy for others to audit ours.

We track emerging AI regulation and established standards (such as the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, and ISO/IEC 42001) and map your obligations based on where and how you operate. For formal legal opinions we work alongside your counsel.

Lightweight governance early is far cheaper than retrofitting it later. A one-page policy and a simple approval path is often enough to start — we size the framework to your actual risk.

A single-system audit typically runs 3–6 weeks depending on complexity and access. A full organisational inventory and framework engagement usually runs 8–12 weeks.

Both work. Some clients want a one-time framework and audit; others keep us on a quarterly retainer for re-audits, monitoring reviews, and regulatory updates. The framework is yours either way — the retainer just keeps it current.

Sounds like your situation?

A 30-minute call. We'll tell you honestly whether this is the right solution — and what it would take.

Explore other solutions