For organisations that need more than a policy — an architecture that holds when a decision or an investigation is challenged.
For organisations that need more than a policy — an architecture that holds when a decision or an investigation is challenged. Both are built to your context and quoted on scope.
When an AI-assisted decision is challenged, the first question is who decided. If the honest answer is "the tool suggested it," the decision is hard to defend. The AI Decision Accountability Framework builds the accountability architecture that answers the question in advance — tracing every AI input to a named person, a timestamp, and a role, so each decision has a human owner on the record. It is for employers who have moved past whether to use AI and now need to show how the decision was made.
A workplace investigation is only as defensible as its process. Introduce AI into it — summarising evidence, drafting findings — and you introduce questions about accuracy, disclosure, and whether the tool quietly shaped the outcome. The AI in Investigations Protocol sets out how AI may and may not be used across an investigation, how its outputs are verified before they are relied on, and how the investigation record is kept defensible from first complaint to final report.
Both depend on the decisions or investigations you run, their complexity, and the processes you already have in place. They are scoped to your organisation rather than sold off a shelf.
Scoped to your organisation after a short conversation.
Enquire about scope →Advisory in nature; not legal advice. If in doubt, engage local employment counsel to test these frameworks against your specific obligations.
Tell us about the decisions or investigations you run, and we'll scope the framework to fit.