What we solve ·Should I approve what is on my desk?
Vanguard · Guide
Would your AI pass an independent audit in 90 days?
The integrator says it works and I am the one who signs.
Pass, conditional pass or fail, issued by someone who did not build it and takes no commission from anyone.
Independent implementation reviewSend this page to whoever decides
This sounds like you if
- You have to authorize a go-live you did not build.
- The only people who understand the system are the people who made it.
- You are asked for an independent opinion and whoever built the system cannot give it. It is the situation of 78 out of 100 executives: they are not confident of passing an audit of their AI in 90 days.
Use this today, without hiring anyone
Eight questions to demand from the builder before signing acceptance. A builder who answers all of them, with evidence, did the work properly.
- What cases was it measured against, and who chose them? If the builder chose them, it is not a measurement, it is a demo.
- What is the error rate, measured how and over what sample?
- Reconstruct one specific decision from last week for me: what went in, what came out and why.
- What can the system do without a human approving, and who set that limit?
- What stops it, who can stop it and in how long?
- What gets logged, how long is it kept and who can consult it six months from now?
- What happens when the vendor changes version without notice?
- Who answers for a wrong decision: you, us or the model vendor?
How we solve it
The method, not the promise.
- The builder's original proposal gets read and what they promised gets noted. A good share of the findings comes from there.
- An independent case bank gets built, with the client and without the builder, and frozen before measuring.
- The system gets measured against that bank. The vendor's metric is not accepted as evidence.
- A recent real decision gets taken and reconstructed end to end. What cannot be reconstructed is the finding.
- The verdict gets written in one of three terms, with no intermediate shading, and gets defended in the room.
What you receive
- A written two page opinion for the committee: fit, fit with conditions, or not fit.
- The findings by dimension, ordered by consequence and supported by observed evidence.
- The performance measurement against a case bank you chose.
- The named conditions, if the verdict is fit with conditions.
The proof that applies here
- Eight years under Mexican regulatory supervision without a single audit finding: on the side being reviewed.
- Two corporate products assessed by an independent analyst in the Gartner Magic Quadrant: on the side being assessed.
- Regulatory audit over an infrastructure of 60,000 servers.
Before you hire
This is independent expert opinion, not certification: it does not replace the seal of an accredited auditor when your contract requires one.
The value of the opinion is that whoever signs it had nothing to gain from the result. The firm does not resell technology, takes no commission from any vendor and enters no alliances that would bias advice. It is written and it is verifiable.
Who signed acceptance of the last go-live, and with what evidence in front of them?
If the problem is a different one
I have a call to make this week and almost everyone with an opinion has something to gain from the answer.
Verdict Session
The financial diligence is done. Nobody looked at whether the operation survives the day after.
Technology and operations due diligence
The vendor's dashboard shows green and the operation keeps going down.
Vendor contract and performance audit