Are Your AI Controls Registered, or Are They Enforced?
Intelligence got cheap. Judgment did not. Most AI deployments have a policy document and a config file, not a control that actually fires. This five-question audit finds the gap between the two for one process in your business.
What “Enforcement Gap” Actually Means
E3AI installs enforcement hooks that intercept an AI action before it executes, not a policy that says it should. The test is binary: did it fire, or not?
We found this the hard way. Three of our own controls were non-executable the first time we ran a behavioral audit on our own infrastructure. They were registered. They appeared in configuration. They intercepted nothing. We found out when an email went out that should have been held for review.
That is the gap this audit checks for, on the one process you tell us about: is the severity of what could go wrong actually matched by a real review step, or is the review step assumed?
- ✅ Severity, validated: We check your own risk rating against what you said would actually happen if it shipped wrong.
- ✅ Enforcement gap, named: A clear yes or no on whether your current review practice matches the risk.
- ✅ Minimum model tier: What class of model this process should never be allowed to run on, and why.
- ✅ A closing roadmap: Three phases to close the gap, specific to your process.
Built for GovCon and compliance-sensitive firms navigating NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001.
AI Governance Audit
Five questions. One personalized governance risk map. Takes five minutes. No pitch.
Prefer to talk directly?