Know what needs examining before you commission the wrong intervention.
A no-fee, bounded review of one proposed AI-assisted decision route. It determines whether the route is sufficiently clear, consequential and evidence-ready for the ID∆AC™ Exposure Diagnostic.
A diagnostic orientation layer before heavier intervention.
Organisations often know that an AI-assisted decision route feels difficult to defend, but not whether the underlying problem is legal, technical, procedural, evidentiary or structural. Scope Review narrows the question before the organisation commits to a broader audit or consulting engagement.
- Identify one decision route that can be examined.
- Clarify the material uncertainty and likely evidence boundary.
- Determine whether the Exposure Diagnostic is the right next step.
- Indicate where legal, technical, audit or operational expertise may be needed afterwards.
Five situations that may justify closer examination.
These are not findings. They are practical signals that one bounded route may deserve a structured evidence review.
Approval exists, but the decision remains unclear.
The record shows that someone approved an outcome, but not what evidence, alternatives or authority shaped the decision before commitment.
AI shaped what became visible or actionable.
A score, ranking, summary, alert or recommendation influenced attention, priority or routing before human review began.
The rationale appeared after operational effect.
An explanation exists, but it is unclear whether the reasoning was available while the decision could still be challenged or changed.
Escalation existed, but could not govern the outcome.
A formal route was available, yet timing, authority or operational constraints may have made it unusable before commitment.
Formal authority and practical control no longer align.
The person recorded as reviewer or approver may not have held the information, mandate or intervention capacity required by the consequence.
One bounded route. A controlled evidence base. A written result.
The public methodology explains how the engagement operates without disclosing proprietary scoring, calibration or internal diagnostic logic.
Confirm the route and evidence perimeter.
The selected decision route, exclusions, assumptions and minimum evidence set are agreed before diagnostic work begins.
Reconstruct how the organisation became committed.
The route is traced across technical influence, human review, approval, escalation and operational effect.
Examine evidence, authority and challenge capacity.
The review considers evidence sufficiency and timing, real authority, override and whether escalation remained usable.
Provide bounded findings and routing priorities.
The client receives written findings, limitations, practical implications and the appropriate next professional direction.
Enough to reconstruct the route—not unrestricted access.
The evidence set is confirmed during Scope Review. It is proportionate to one selected route and supplied through a controlled, agreed channel.
Policy or guidance
The rules expected to govern AI use, review or approval.
Roles and ownership
Named functions, authority allocation and route ownership.
Workflow evidence
SOPs, process descriptions, screenshots or route diagrams.
Approval records
Sign-off, review and commitment evidence for the selected route.
Override and escalation
Routes for challenge, exception, appeal, pause or intervention.
Sample decision record
One representative, appropriately prepared route record.
Risk or incident material
Only where relevant, authorised and inside the agreed boundary.
Vendor note
A bounded description of third-party influence where applicable.
A written client pack designed for decision, scrutiny and next-step routing.
Every output remains bounded by the confirmed route, available evidence, stated assumptions and explicit limitations.
Scope and assumptions note
Confirms the route, evidence basis, exclusions and working assumptions.
Decision route reconstruction
Shows how technical influence, human review, authority and operational commitment connected.
Evidence sufficiency assessment
Clarifies what the available record can support—and what it cannot establish under scrutiny.
Authority and escalation view
Identifies where intervention capacity, override, escalation and final commitment were actually located.
Executive exposure report
Presents the principal findings, limitations and practical implications for the selected route.
Close-out routing note
Sets immediate clarification, preservation and specialist-routing priorities without becoming redesign consulting.
After the diagnostic, the organisation should be better able to answer:
- Where did AI materially influence the route?
- Who could decide, and who actually committed the organisation?
- What evidence existed, remained visible and was recorded in time?
- Could review, override or escalation still change the outcome?
- What type of specialist intervention—if any—should follow?
Scope Review and Exposure Diagnostic are separate stages.
The first tests suitability. The second performs the bounded diagnostic examination under a separate written agreement.
Scope Review
A bounded review of fit, route clarity and likely evidence readiness. It does not produce findings, a score or a preliminary diagnostic conclusion.
ID∆AC™ Exposure Diagnostic
A 14-day, asynchronous, evidence-first examination of one bounded AI-assisted decision route. Fee excludes VAT and depends on confirmed scope.
Diagnostic clarity without pretending to replace specialist mandates.
ID∆AC™ helps the organisation locate and describe decision exposure. It does not certify the system, resolve legal interpretation or redesign the operating model.
Prepare one route. Keep the initial disclosure bounded.
The first objective is not to prove exposure. It is to determine whether a controlled, evidence-ready examination is possible.
Download and complete the Intake.
Describe one route, the operational consequence, AI influence, relevant functions, likely evidence and the unresolved question.
Email the completed Intake.
Send it to contact@iddac.eu with a short note explaining what the organisation needs to clarify.
Receive a written scope position.
Where appropriate, ID∆AC™ will define the proposed diagnostic perimeter, evidence boundary, fee and engagement terms.