The business retains authority over its systems.

Governance keeps the whole operating system within agreed authority. AI governance follows the same standard, with access, approval and change defined in the software.

Remit: Data, decisions and operating authority
Control evidence: Permission matrix, action record and release evidence
Responsibility: Client authority and engineering responsibilities defined in writing

An AI governance framework defines the authority to act.

Authority follows the record through the system.

Key

Approval is enforced by the application.Changes require review and recovery evidence.

The system in words

This illustrative control pattern begins with permitted source records. The application prepares a proposed action within the user’s role. A named reviewer can approve, edit or reject it; a held or rejected action cannot execute. An approved action produces a linked record of input, actor, decision, edits and outcome. Change review and a rehearsed recovery procedure preserve the operating boundary.

Access follows the operating role.

The permission matrix identifies the records and operations available to each role. Administrative access has a separate boundary. The illustrative map shows how a permitted source becomes a proposed action.

Approval precedes the consequential action.

Anything that moves money, contacts a client or changes a record of consequence waits for a named person. The reviewer sees the source and proposed output, with authority to edit, reject or stop the action.

The record preserves the decision.

Each action connects its input, actor, approval, edits and outcome. Changes to permissions, integrations or models receive review and testing before release, with a rehearsed way back.

Control becomes visible in the operating record.

An extract from an approval matrix and action record, prepared with synthetic evidence.

Approval matrix and action record

An approved instruction has a traceable source.

Operation and authority: A draft customer reply requires the account owner’s approval. The drafting service can read the enquiry and prepare text; it has no permission to send.
Source and proposal: Enquiry E-104, revision 2, is linked to draft D-208. The draft records the proposed recipient and the source used.
Reviewer decision: The account owner corrects the delivery date and approves revision 3 at 10:42 on 14 October 2026. Earlier revisions remain held.
Action record: The dispatch service sends the approved revision at 10:43. Record A-312 links the approver, edit, recipient, dispatch result and source enquiry.
Control evidence: Requirement G-07: a draft without approval cannot send. The synthetic test record shows a held attempt and names the systems owner as reviewer.
Change and recovery: A permission change requires review before release. The release record identifies the tested reversal and the owner authorised to stop dispatch.

The framework connects the six delivery standards to the particular system. Its AI policy states permitted uses and responsibilities; the control register records implementation, evaluation and findings.

A person signing a paper document with a pen.

100%of agreements signed with a complete audit trail

Every agreement signed through the platform since launch carries its version snapshot, signature event and PDF.

The agreement retains its signing record.

The proposal study connects the recipient’s agreement to a snapshot, signature and retained PDF. The signing record preserves the evidence for that event.

Read the proposal analytics and e-signature study.

Governance runs throughout the engagement.

Diagnostic and plan: The Diagnostic records current access and control gaps. The Operating Plan defines intended use, decision owners and the evidence required for acceptance.
Build and operation: Build implements and tests the agreed controls. Stewardship reviews incidents, access and material changes against those requirements.
Client authority: The sponsor approves intended use and appoints process, data and release owners. Those owners confirm acceptable behaviour and the authority to intervene.
Engineering and review: Seichō records the control requirements, implementation and test evidence. The release decision identifies unresolved findings, their owners and the conditions for stopping use.
Security: Security is designed in from the first decision. Where a system holds sensitive or regulated data, independent penetration testing is scoped into the proposal before go-live.
Migration and recovery: Every migration is assisted through rehearsed stages and parallel running. The handover includes the operating runbook, reversal procedure and recovery evidence.

The same authority applies to process automation and model-assisted work. Govern remains part of every engagement, from the first decision through daily operation.

The intended use defines the assessment.

Qualified legal advisers assess the scope of the EU AI Act for the intended use. Seichō supplies records of system boundaries and supplier responsibilities, and implements the requirements agreed through that review.

The research agenda includes the published EU AI Act paper, dated 16 October 2026. It provides general information and is not legal advice.

Existing systems: An assessment of an existing system has a defined boundary, agreed access and appointed reviewers. The proposal identifies the assessment and implementation work included, its timing and dependencies.
Commissioning: Fees are fixed and set out in a written proposal. The briefing establishes scope.

Clear authority gives the system a sound basis.

Request a briefing