Skip to content
Request a demonstration

AI governance, security and trust

Govern the AI your organisation uses

Teams adopt AI tools faster than anyone records them, who approved them or what they may touch.

Demonstration: Pellam Diagnostics Ltd (fictional) · Medical devices. Fictional data and a scripted answer.

The situation

Organisation
Pellam Diagnostics Ltd (fictional)
Who is asking
Head of AI governance
Industry
Medical devices
What happened
Staff want an AI assistant that can answer questions from company documents, and the committee must decide which data it may read.

The question asked

Which company data may the AI assistant be allowed to read, and which must be kept from it?

What it reads, and who can see the result

  • Data source inventory registerSources with their classification.
  • AI use policy documentWhat AI tools may and may not access.
Reads
The inventory and the AI use policy.
Does not read
The content of any source at this step.
Permission
AI governance access to the inventory.
Who sees it
The head of AI governance, the CISO and the data protection officer.

Try it

Choose what the platform may read. Restricted material cannot be put in scope here, and a classification the analysis is unsure of must be verified by a person.

Read it?SourceHoldsSensitivityWhat the analysis thinks it is
Published product documentation
Public site
540 documentsopenProduct manuals and datasheets clear
Internal procedures
Quality system
1,900 documentsinternalApproved procedures clear
Support knowledge base
Helpdesk
3,200 documentsinternalSupport articles check
Clinical evaluation files
Regulatory share
410 documentsrestrictedClinical data and evaluations clear
Board minutes
Governance system
260 documentsrestrictedBoard papers clear
Shared team folders
File server
15,800 documentsinternalMixed working files check

Sources in scope
0 of 6
documents in scope
0
Restricted, kept out
2 sources
To verify
0

The answer

Simulated answer. Written for this fictional case, not produced by a live model. Only the figures in it are computed, from what you decided above.

0 of 6 sources are open to the assistant, 0 documents.

The policy allows an assistant to read open and internal material but never restricted material, whatever the convenience [S1][S2]. Clinical evaluation files and board minutes are restricted and cannot be added here.

Two classifications are uncertain, and mixed team folders are the usual place restricted material hides, so a person must verify them: 0 included source(s) still need that check.

Relies on: S1 · Data source inventoryS2 · AI use policy v1

Review and approval

The head of AI governance with the data protection officer decides. Approving sets the data the assistant may read. It does not switch the assistant on, and it can be narrowed or revoked at any time.

Not ready to approve. Choose at least one source to read first.

In the product this is a different person with the right permission. Here you play that role to see the rule.

What it produces

registerDraft, not approved

Assistant data scope

  • 0 sources, 0 documents.
  • 2 restricted sources excluded.
evidenceDraft, not approved

Governance decision

  • The decision, the person who verified each uncertain source and the policy applied.

Limits of this example

  • Scope limits what the assistant can read; it says nothing about how well it answers.
  • Answers still need the evidence checks described elsewhere on this site.
  • This is a scripted demonstration on fictional data. No model was called and no real organisation, person or result is shown.