ID∆AC™ · Exposure Diagnostic
Can your AI-assisted decision route survive scrutiny?
The ID∆AC™ Exposure Diagnostic is a structured 14-day review of a concrete AI-assisted or technically mediated decision pathway.
The diagnostic usually focuses on one concrete decision route or a tightly bounded representative pathway.
Designed for Legal, Risk, Compliance, AI Governance, Operations and executive teams.
Service snapshot
A bounded diagnostic, not a full-system audit.
14 days
Standard asynchronous diagnostic duration.
One route
One concrete decision route or tightly bounded representative pathway.
Evidence-first
Focused on what can be reconstructed, attributed and defended.
Low-friction
No unrestricted access to internal systems is required.
What the diagnostic is
A structured review of how a decision became attributable.
Many organizations can show policies, reviewers, approval steps and governance documents. The harder question is whether they can reconstruct how a specific AI-assisted or technically mediated decision actually happened.
ID∆AC™ examines the decision route: where technical outputs influenced the pathway, where human authority was retained or reduced, what evidence existed at the time, whether escalation or veto routes were usable, and whether the organization can explain the decision without rewriting history after the fact.
The result is not a legal opinion, technical audit or compliance certification. It is a diagnostic view of exposure, reconstructability and structural defensibility.
Six questions under scrutiny
The diagnostic tests whether the decision route can be reconstructed.
01
Who actually decided?
Identify whether authority remained substantive or became merely formal.
02
When did the decision become binding?
Locate the point where a recommendation, score, ranking or technical output became operationally decisive.
03
What was known at the time?
Separate contemporaneous evidence from later explanations, assumptions or outcome-based narratives.
04
What influence did AI have?
Assess whether technical outputs filtered, framed, ranked, summarized, escalated or narrowed human judgment.
05
What could be stopped or escalated?
Review whether real intervention, challenge, veto or escalation mechanisms existed and were usable.
06
Can the route be reconstructed?
Test whether the decision pathway can be explained clearly without rewriting the story after the fact.
Diagnostic process
A 14-day asynchronous review.
Days 0–2
Scoping
Define the decision route, relevant actors, available evidence, system touchpoints and review boundaries.
Days 3–6
Evidence mapping
Map documents, timestamps, approvals, technical outputs, escalation traces and decision records.
Days 7–10
Exposure analysis
Analyze authority retention, AI influence, evidence gaps, escalation failure points and reconstructability risk.
Days 11–14
Findings
Produce a diagnostic report, exposure findings and practical stabilization priorities.
Client receives
Diagnostic outputs.
Executive Exposure Brief
A concise executive summary of exposure, route fragility and priority findings.
Decision Route Map
A structured representation of the route from technical influence to organizational decision.
Evidence Attribution Matrix
A matrix showing what evidence existed, where it came from and whether it supports reconstruction.
Authority & Intervention Trace
A review of where human authority, discretion, veto or escalation could realistically operate.
Exposure Findings Register
A structured register of exposure points affecting defensibility and reconstructability.
Stabilisation Priorities
Practical priorities for reducing exposure without redesigning the whole governance system.
Scope boundaries
What ID∆AC™ is — and what it is not.
ID∆AC™ is
- A focused Exposure Diagnostic for AI-assisted decision routes.
- A 14-day asynchronous review.
- Evidence-first and low-friction.
- A review of attribution, defensibility and escalation readiness.
- An executive-ready exposure finding.
ID∆AC™ is not
- Not a technical audit or model validation.
- Not legal advice.
- Not a certification or conformity assessment.
- Not a full governance redesign project.
- Not a guarantee of compliance or outcomes.
Pricing
Engagement pricing.
Initial conversation
No fee
Initial scope review to determine whether the diagnostic is appropriate.
Exposure Diagnostic
€5,000–€7,500
Typical range for a bounded 14-day diagnostic, depending on complexity, evidence availability and route depth.
Extended review
Custom
Multi-route, follow-up or deeper review work is scoped separately.
When it is useful
Use the diagnostic when a decision route may later be challenged.
AI influenced prioritization
Scores, rankings, recommendations or triage outputs shaped what humans saw or treated as urgent.
Human review may be formal
Human sign-off exists, but it is unclear whether reviewers had real discretion, time, context or authority.
Evidence is fragmented
Documents, logs, explanations and approvals exist, but do not yet form a defensible reconstruction.
Escalation is unclear
There may have been theoretical escalation routes, but their practical usability is uncertain.
A challenge is possible
A complaint, dispute, audit, regulatory question or executive review may require a clear account of what happened.
Governance looks complete
Policies exist, but the organization is unsure whether the actual route is structurally defensible.
Request a scope review before sending sensitive material.
The initial conversation determines whether the Exposure Diagnostic is appropriate for the decision route. Do not send confidential, regulated, privileged, personal or commercially sensitive material until a suitable disclosure route has been agreed.