Governance · Compliance · GRC

Governance decisions
need evidence,
not opinion.

The Briefing Engine generates auditable decision templates with structured evidence, explicit conflicts, and clear boundaries.

Request pilot — free The problem ↓
1.0
Routing Score · 496 tests
1.0
Report Quality · 10 criteria
3
Jurisdictions EU/UK/US
0
FAIL in tests
01 — The Risk

The risk is not the wrong opinion — but lack of traceability.

01
What is fact — and what is assumption?
02
Where are the conflicts of interest in this recommendation?
03
Where does the evidence end — and what remains unclear?
04
Can we reconstruct this decision later?
02 — Output format

7 mandatory fields.
No briefing unless all are met.

1
Question type
Empirical, normative, speculative
2
Core claims
With evidence class & uncertainty
3
Evidence base
Internal + external + conflict point
4
Uncertainty
Grade with reasoning – not just "high"
5
Contradiction
At least 1 counter‑position + evidence conflict
6
Interpretation
Clearly separated from facts
7
Limits
What you must not conclude
Example — NIS2 Readiness · IT Governance · EUDONE OK
Question type
Empirical + policy/interpretative
Evidence base
NIS2 mandates risk management + reporting processes. Internal documentation incomplete.
Contradiction
"Hardening first, governance later." Weakens auditability.
Not allowed
❌ "The company is NIS2‑compliant / non‑compliant"
03 — Deterministic scoring

Deterministic assessment.
Not promised.

1.0
Routing Score
496 test cases · LLM classifier
1.0
Report Quality Score
10 mandatory criteria · ABORT if evidence missing
0
FAIL in tests
8× OK · 3× ABORT (correct) · 0× unexpected error
04 — For whom

For everyone who
owns decisions.

🏛️ Board Office · Legal · Compliance
Decision templates for the supervisory board – traceable, auditable, honest.
📊 GRC teams · Internal Audit
Finance, energy, pharma. Regulated daily work needs clear evidence.
🔐 CISO Office · NIS2 readiness
Risk management and reporting duties. Who is liable needs proof.
🌱 ESG · CSRD reporting teams
Regulation in motion: what changes, for whom, when – and which conflicts.
05 — Regulatorily anchored

EU · UK · US

🇪🇺
European Union
EUR-Lex · ESMA · EC DG FISMA · EFRAG · ENISA · OECD
🇬🇧
United Kingdom
UK Corporate Governance Code 2024 · FRC · Wates Principles · Companies Act 2006
🇺🇸
United States
NYSE 303A · NASDAQ 5600 · SEC Reg S-K · Sarbanes‑Oxley §302/404
06 — What the Engine is — and isn't

What the Engine is — and isn't.

❌ NOT
  • Legal advice or compliance certificate
  • Automated decision with legal effect (Art. 22 GDPR)
  • Substitute for legal review
  • AI chatbot that answers everything
✅ BUT
  • Structured decision preparation
  • Complete audit trail for every briefing
  • Explicit limits of validity
  • ABORT when evidence is insufficient
🔍 07 — How the Engine works

No black box.
Every step traceable.

📄

1. Split sources

The engine splits regulatory documents into overlapping text chunks – e.g., each provision of the UK Code as its own unit. Context is preserved.

🔢

2. Embeddings

Each chunk is turned into a vector (384 numbers). The model "all-MiniLM-L6-v2" captures meaning – not just keywords.

🎯

3. Semantic search

Your question is mapped to the same vector space. The engine finds the 3 most similar chunks – by meaning, not keywords.

📦

4. Evidence pack

From the chunks we build an evidence pack: original text, source, evidence class (Gold / Regulatory / Web), confidence, date.

✅

5. 7‑point check

The evidence pack is mapped to the seven mandatory fields. Only if all are fulfilled does a briefing appear.

⛔

6. ABORT on weak evidence

If the top chunks don't provide sufficient evidence (question too specific, no source), the engine does not hallucinate. It returns HTTP 422 – ABORT with explanation.

📜

7. Audit trail

Every briefing contains a full audit trail: which source, which chunk, which model, which timestamp. Every claim is verifiable.

🧪 Real example: Question about "Independence requirements for audit committee chair under UK Code 2024"

The engine searches 25 chunks of UK provisions. The most similar chunk is D.4 (Audit Committee of independent non‑executive directors). The briefing quotes the original text, assigns evidence class GOLD FIXTURE, source FRC. Uncertainty is rated MEDIUM because the interpretation of "independence" can be company‑specific.

08 — Pricing (post‑pilot)

Transparent. Scalable.

Basic
2.490 €
per month
  • 20 briefings/month
  • 1 user
Professional
4.990 €
per month
  • 50 briefings
  • 5 users
  • SLA <24h
Enterprise
9.900 €
per month
  • 150 briefings
  • Unlimited users
  • On‑prem possible
09 — Pilot program

3 months.
10 briefings.
Free.

I'm looking for 3 pilot customers who will actually use the system. No hidden costs, no lock‑in.

✓ 3 months✓ 10 briefings/month✓ No lock‑in✓ Cancel anytime
Request pilot →
[email protected]
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

How is evidence checked? +
The engine searches regulatory sources (EUR-Lex, FRC, SEC etc.) and cross‑checks with internal documents. Each claim receives an evidence class (A–C). If evidence is insufficient, the engine ABORTS.
Is the engine GDPR compliant? +
Yes. There is no automated decision‑making with legal effect (Art. 22 GDPR). Your data is encrypted and deleted after 3 years.
Can I share briefings? +
Yes, every briefing is exportable as PDF and JSON. The full audit trail remains – perfect for supervisory boards or auditors.
Live demo

Try the engine
– no signup

Ask a governance question and see the 7 mandatory fields fill in real time.

Try keywords like "NIS2", "CSRD", "SOX", "risk management"

Briefing (simulation)Live preview
👉 Try the real Briefing Engine