Threshold establishes the institutional AI governance position leadership can stand behind and the organisation can operate.
AI increasingly arrives inside systems the institution already uses. Technology, data, security, procurement, legal and the operating functions each hold part of the answer, and leadership needs a clear view of how those decisions fit together. When the institutional position has to be rebuilt for each new use or material change, the work repeats.
When those decisions do not keep pace with AI use, each new use has to reopen questions the institution has not settled.
The Assessment is the evidence instrument inside the Threshold engagement.
The governance position the institution states at the outset.
The position supported by the evidence produced: lower, equal to, or higher than the declared baseline.
The Assessment is not certification, assurance, legal advice or a compliance determination.
Each dimension carries its own position. They are not combined into a single institutional score, and a strong position in one dimension does not offset a regulatory finding elsewhere.
Threshold takes the findings to leadership, where the policy, accountability and escalation decisions are made and recorded.
The institution’s documented position on approved use, prohibited use and escalation.
Named accountable decision owners against named AI-influenced decisions, with system ownership, operating responsibility and oversight kept distinct.
A concise leadership record suitable for a minister, board, regulator or audit committee.
Committee oversight does not remove the need for identifiable accountability. Decision accountability is recorded separately from system ownership.
The institution receives the record behind the assessment conclusion: the findings, the evidence record and the regulatory analysis.
The first conversation is to understand your AI mandate, the institutional position you need to establish and the functions that need to be represented.
Threshold establishes the institutional AI governance position leadership can stand behind and the organisation can operate.
AI increasingly arrives inside systems the institution already uses. Technology, data, security, procurement, legal and the operating functions each hold part of the answer, and leadership needs a clear view of how those decisions fit together. When the institutional position has to be rebuilt for each new use or material change, the work repeats.
When those decisions do not keep pace with AI use, each new use has to reopen questions the institution has not settled.
The Assessment is the evidence instrument inside the Threshold engagement.
Lower, equal to, or higher than the declared baseline.
Each dimension carries its own position. They are not combined into a single institutional score. Regulatory findings are reported separately from the six governance positions.
The Assessment is not certification, assurance, legal advice or a compliance determination.
Threshold takes the findings to leadership, where the policy, accountability and escalation decisions are made and recorded.
The institution’s documented position on approved use, prohibited use and escalation.
Named accountable decision owners against named AI-influenced decisions, with system ownership, operating responsibility and oversight kept distinct.
A concise leadership record suitable for a minister, board, regulator or audit committee.
The first conversation is to understand your AI mandate, the institutional position you need to establish and the functions that need to be represented.