Skip to main content
    PartnersCo-design

    Reign Assurance is being built with the people who will have to rely on it.

    Which checks, which exceptions, in whose format. Those answers do not come from us, and a product that decides them on its own arrives at a review and fails it. So we are designing it in the open with a small number of organizations, on a scope written down at the start.

    Reign Assurance is not sold and is not shipping. This page is an invitation to shape it, not an offer to buy it. Scope is agreed first, and the effort and the commercial relationship follow from it, written down before anything starts. Where every motion stands →

    The gap co-design closes criteria, not features
    What a system emits What an auditor relies on Timestamped Retained Machine-readable Complete, as far as it knows THE GAP Attributable to a named actor Contemporaneous Reconcilable to another source Legible to someone who did not build it Co-design decides what closes the gap CRITERIA FIRST, THEN THE PRODUCT
    A system’s record of itself is information produced by the entity. It becomes evidence when someone independent can establish that it is complete and accurate.
    What the word means here

    The industry uses this word loosely. This is what we mean by it.

    Co-design is not a pilot with a discount attached, and it is not a design-partner badge in exchange for a logo. It is a working arrangement with four properties, and if any of them is missing it is something else.

    01One named population of work
    Scope is written down at the start. If it grows, that is a new conversation and not an assumption.
    02A named engineer, embedded
    They sit with your team and see the real conditions rather than the described ones, and take the findings back into the design.
    03Your conditions change the design
    This is the part that makes it co-design rather than a pilot. What you push back on is what gets rebuilt.
    04It ends where you agreed it ends
    How long an engagement runs, and what closes it, is written down alongside the scope before anything starts. Nothing here is open-ended and nothing renews by default.
    Who we are looking for

    Three kinds of participant, and three different asks.

    A design built only from customers describes what one buyer wanted. Built only from practitioners it describes a method nobody has to operate. We want all three in the room, and we want different things from each.

    01Regulated institutions
    You run AI-enabled work that has to be defended, and somebody in your organization signs for it.

    What we ask for. Access to one real population of work, and time with the control function that would rely on the output — internal audit, risk, or whoever actually holds it.

    What you get. The checks and the evidence format are shaped against your review, not against a generic one. Written for the CAE →

    02Technology and industry partners
    You own a process or a product that regulated institutions already depend on.

    What we ask for. The regulatory shape your domain already has to hold, and an engineer who can answer questions about how the process actually behaves rather than how it is documented.

    What you get. The assurance model understands your domain rather than treating it as a generic workflow. How this works with Summit58 →

    03Consulting and transformation firms
    Your practice reviews other people’s work for a living, and you are being asked about AI governance by clients right now.

    What we ask for. Method. What your practice actually does in a review, what evidence it will and will not accept, and where a client’s AI work currently defeats it.

    What you get. A record built to satisfy the review you already run, in vocabulary your practice uses. Commercial partnership is separate →

    Your objectivity, and how we protect it. If you run internal audit, IIA Standard 2.2 presumes your objectivity is impaired on any activity you were responsible for in the previous twelve months. That is a real constraint, and we would rather name it here than have you discover it at the point you need to rely on something. So what we ask you for is criteria. Which checks matter, what evidence you would accept, and what threshold makes a result reportable. We are not asking you to design the product, endorse it, or validate it. Setting the standard a thing must meet is not the same as building the thing, and only one of those is a problem for you.

    Co-design and commercial partnership are different conversations and can happen in either order. Taking part here does not make you a partner, and being a partner does not put you in the cohort.

    The arrangement

    Scope defines the effort, and the effort defines the terms.

    Reign Assurance is not sold and is not shipping, and taking part does not change that. What co-design asks for varies enormously: a control function giving us its review method is spending hours, while instrumenting a real population of work on a live estate is engineering. So the first thing agreed is scope. The effort follows from the scope, and the commercial relationship follows from the effort. All of it is written down before anything starts, and none of it is settled by a page, which is why this one does not try to.

    What gets written down first
    Which population of work is in scope and which is not. Who is involved on both sides and what their time is being asked for. What the work will touch and what it will never touch. How long it runs and what ends it. Neither side should be working from an assumption about any of those, and none of them are the same twice.
    What co-design does not confer
    A place in a queue, a licence, or a claim on the design. Reign Assurance is not sold, and taking part does not entitle you to it if and when it ships. What the work produces on your estate is a different matter: that is yours, and it stays yours whether Assurance ever ships or not.
    Why the cohort is small
    The work is close. A named engineer sits with each participant, and that does not scale by adding logos to a slide. We are working with a small number of organizations rather than running a waiting list, and when the cohort is full we will say so on this page rather than keeping a queue warm.
    What happens at the end. Co-design runs to a horizon named in the engagement rather than indefinitely, because an arrangement with no end is an advisory relationship wearing a design programme’s name. Where it ends is agreed at the start along with everything else. You keep what the work produced either way, and whatever comes after is a separate conversation with its own terms. What has to be true before Assurance ships →
    Before you put your name forward

    Four things this is not.

    We would rather lose you at this section than three months in.

    01Not early access to a product
    There is no shipping product behind this page. Reign Assurance is in co-design development, and what exists today is a model, a demonstration on synthetic data, and an evidence package with a verifier.
    02Not a discount
    Taking part does not price the product, reserve a place in line, or entitle you to preferential terms later. Whatever an engagement asks of either side, it confers no standing with us afterwards. If it did, the feedback would be worth less.
    03Not a reference commitment
    We do not publish participant names, and we will not ask you for a quote, a logo or a case study as a condition of taking part.
    04Not a reseller or referral programme
    Those exist and they are commercial arrangements with their own terms. This is not a route into them. The partner program →
    Next step

    Bring us work that has to be defended.

    One population of work, who owns it, and what a reviewer currently asks you for that you struggle to produce. We will tell you plainly whether we think co-design would be useful to you, including when we think it would not, and whether what you need is a conversation or an engagement.