AI Evidence Readiness Assessment

What your assessment delivers.

Synthetic assessment example. Fictional records and findings. No customer engagement, legal conclusion or product acceptance is represented.

Review question

Was account recovery request SYN-REC-0042 approved by an authorised person before the recovery action executed?

Agreed boundary

One recovery workflow and one historical decision. Supplied artifacts: request record A1; policy check A2 naming RECOVERY-7/v3; approval record A3; recovery-service receipt A4. No live-system access.

Example Evidence Readiness Record
Finding	Source	What the records support
SUPPORTED	A1, A2	The request and policy check reference the same correlation identifier. The recorded check required approval.
SUPPORTED	A3, A4	An approval record and execution receipt reference that identifier. Their recorded times place approval first; clock accuracy was not independently established.
MISSING	Not supplied	The historical role or delegation record for the named approver.
UNKNOWN	Insufficient evidence	Whether that person held the required approval authority at the time.
UNKNOWN	Capture boundary	Whether all related events were supplied. A consistent chain would not establish complete capture.

Example prioritised gaps

Authority: request the historical role/delegation artifact. Suggested owner: identity operations.
Time: document clock sources and correlation ordering. Suggested owner: platform engineering.
Coverage: reconcile expected workflow events with the executing service. Suggested owner: workflow owner.

Process and instrumentation

A process gap might require an approval rule to change. An instrumentation gap might require an existing approval to be recorded and linked. The findings separate these changes and identify unresolved conclusions.

Example target evidence design

Proposed for this fictional workflow, subject to scoping and testing. Retain the common decision identifier with the policy version, approval identity, action scope, authority valid at the time and the executing service receipt. Keep source references and event time separate from the time the evidence service received the record. Minimise personal data in each field.

Checks to agree before a pilot

Trace one approved action from request to execution receipt and its historical authority record.
Withdraw or expire an approval in a synthetic test and check the executing system\u2019s behaviour separately from the evidence it produces.
Omit an expected receipt and confirm source reconciliation identifies the gap rather than declaring complete capture.

These are proposed acceptance checks, not completed test results or enforcement delivered by the assessment.

What the workflow owner can decide

First determine whether existing records can close the authority gap. Assign process changes and instrumentation changes separately. A pilot is warranted only if the agreed evidence requirements cannot be met through existing systems and procedures.

Next step

A pilot would agree sources, fields and acceptance tests for capturing the missing authority link. It would not treat a record saying “approved” as proof of legitimate authority or actual execution.

Review assessment scope and price See the separate technical bundle example

Reviewed 27 October 2026.