AI Governance Gateway
An AI idea needs a clear business purpose, proportionate risk assessment and accountable decisions before it is implemented. Our planned AI Governance Gateway will bring feasibility, information, safeguards, evidence and approvals into one structured journey. The digital Gateway is in development and is not yet available for online submissions.
✓ Assess individual AI ideas ✓ Review risk & feasibility ✓ Define evidence & safeguards ✓ Digital gateway in development
A Good AI Idea Still Needs a Defensible Decision
AI initiatives can arise across teams before responsibilities, information flows or potential impacts are clear. A structured evaluation helps the organisation decide what may proceed, what must change and who is accountable.
Unclear Purpose
The proposed benefit and responsible business owner are not always defined.
Unknown Data Risks
Sensitive information, permissions and supplier access may be overlooked.
Missing Decisions
Teams need clarity about approvers, conditions and escalation.
Limited Evidence
A credible decision requires an auditable record of findings and safeguards.
From Initiative to Evidence and Approval
The planned Gateway will capture the intended use, assess feasibility and risks, identify safeguards and supporting evidence, and route decisions to the appropriate people. An idea may be approved conditionally, revised, deferred or declined. The software remains in development.
Propose an Idea
Assess Its Risks
Record a Decision
Six Questions to Examine Before Implementation
The proposed assessment brings together business purpose, information, affected people, technical dependencies, risks and authorisation. The questions and evidence requirements should be proportionate to the particular initiative.
Purpose and Ownership
What is being improved, for whom and under whose responsibility?
Data and Knowledge
What information is used, and are quality and permissions adequate?
Technology and Suppliers
What models, integrations, third parties and technical limits apply?
People and Impact
Who may be affected, and where is human judgement essential?
Risk and Controls
What legal, privacy, security and operational safeguards are required?
Approval and Review
Who approves, what evidence is recorded and when must it be reassessed?
A Clear Record of the AI Decision
A repeatable decision record should connect an idea to its owner, evidence, evaluation, required controls and approval. Decisions should be reviewed again when the purpose, data, model, supplier or risk profile changes.
Review the Use Case, Not Just the Tool
AI readiness across an organisation provides shared foundations, but it does not remove the need to examine each new use case. An initiative must be reviewed in its actual setting, including people affected, sensitive data, model limitations and applicable requirements.
- Propose the idea
- Establish feasibility
- Review information
- Assess impact and risk
- Specify safeguards
- Decision & evidence
- Monitor and reassess
Frame the AI proposal around its business purpose, sponsor and intended users. Reviewers need the actual activity being proposed, not only the product name.
- Explain the task clearly
- Name the business owner
- Document the desired benefit
- Define intended users
- State the proposed boundaries
- Record current alternatives
For example, a proposed customer assistant needs a defined audience, purpose and accountable sponsor. The planned intake gives reviewers a specific business problem to examine before choosing a tool.
Examine the costs, alternatives and dependencies behind a proposed AI initiative. A worthwhile idea still depends on usable information, people and resources.
- Review options
- Estimate effort and cost
- Identify system constraints
- Check delivery capacity
- Identify missing evidence
- Record key assumptions
For example, a promising idea may depend on data preparation or a specialist system that is not yet available. The planned record shows dependencies and assumptions that still need evidence before the idea proceeds.
Identify the information and supplier access needed for the proposed AI use. The record should explain why each source is needed and where it will travel.
- List sensitive records
- Check permissions and use
- Review retention needs
- Map supplier data flows
- Identify source owners
- Document access boundaries
For example, reviewers would examine whether a supplier receives customer information and why it needs it. The planned review shows information flows, including what leaves the organisation and who can access it.
Assess how the proposed AI use could affect people, privacy and operations. Context determines who could be affected and what further scrutiny is needed.
- Identify affected people
- Examine failure outcomes
- Assign reviewers
- Consider misuse scenarios
- Record unresolved uncertainty
- Define review depth
For example, an initiative affecting customer decisions may need specialist review and stronger evidence. The planned review links the depth of evidence and specialist scrutiny to your initiative's context and impact.
Specify safeguards that address the initiative's identified risks and uncertainties. A safeguard needs to address a specific failure or consequence in the proposal.
- Define human review
- Set testing and monitoring
- Set escalation rules
- Assign safeguard ownership
- Define effectiveness evidence
- Plan failure responses
For example, a proposed approval control would name the reviewer and the evidence they must examine. Each proposed safeguard needs an owner and evidence explaining how its effectiveness will be checked.
Document the decision, its evidence and any conditions attached by reviewers. A useful decision record makes the reasons and outstanding obligations clear.
- Name decision authorities
- Link evidence and reasons
- Assign outstanding actions
- Record approval conditions
- Set action deadlines
- Retain reviewer concerns
For example, approval might depend on resolving a data gap and demonstrating that a safeguard works. The planned record retains the decision, reasons, evidence, uncertainty and follow-up conditions.
Reassess the initiative when material changes or new evidence affect its earlier review. Changes in purpose, access or automation can alter the original decision.
- Set review dates and triggers
- Track incidents and changes
- Reopen affected decisions
- Assign monitoring ownership
- Review changed permissions
- Track outstanding conditions
For example, giving an assistant new system permissions may require the earlier assessment to be revisited. Major changes may require another proportionate review before this use continues.
Evidence and Responsibilities in One Place
Accountability requires more than a risk score. The planned Gateway is intended to record what was reviewed, what remains uncertain, which safeguards apply and who authorised the outcome.
Idea summary
Record the proposed task, intended users and business owner so reviewers understand the purpose.
Feasibility evidence
Capture dependencies, alternatives and constraints that determine whether the idea can proceed.
Data assessment
Identify sources, sensitive records, permissions and supplier access relevant to the proposed use.
Risk record
Document potential impacts, uncertainty and specialist review needed for the specific initiative.
Required safeguards
Assign controls, responsible owners and the evidence needed to demonstrate their effectiveness.
Decision conditions
Retain the authorised outcome, reasoning and conditions that must be met before proceeding.
Accountable owners
Identify who proposes, reviews, approves and maintains the initiative throughout its lifecycle.
Reassessment triggers
Specify which changes, incidents or review dates require the initiative to be assessed again.
A Proposed Idea-to-Decision Journey
An idea is framed, screened for feasibility and risk, reviewed with suitable stakeholders, and either authorised under conditions or returned for further work. Higher-impact initiatives may require additional evidence, specialist review or formal escalation.
Different Ideas Demand Different Scrutiny
An internal drafting assistant and a system affecting customer or employee decisions do not carry identical risks. Assessment depth and approval routes should reflect impact and context.
Lower-Risk Initiatives
For a limited internal assistant, review permitted information, purpose, human checking and ownership before testing.
Higher-Impact Initiatives
For higher-impact AI use, examine affected people, information sensitivity, legal duties and the need for formal independent review.
For wider organisational foundations, explore our AI Readiness Assessment and its live self-assessments.
What the Gateway Is Being Designed to Record
Define
Capture the proposed idea, purpose, owner and affected users.
Examine
Review feasibility, information, integrations and expected value.
Assess
Record potential impacts, uncertainty and specialist review requirements.
Safeguard
Specify controls, testing, human oversight and the evidence needed.
Decide
Record approval, conditions, revision, deferral or rejection with authorised reviewers and reasons.
Review
Reassess when the purpose, model, supplier or risk profile changes.
The Gateway software, questionnaires and approvals are in development. There is no live automated Gateway submission or certification service. For implementation help, explore Enterprise AI & Intelligent Automation; for organisational foundations, try our AI Readiness Assessment.
Different Businesses. Different Key Requirements.
The same AI idea can face different working conditions. A consultancy may review files and proposals; a distributor may assess service data; a recruiter may examine approved candidate records. The planned framework will assess those differences and identify the evidence each use needs.
Legal & Claims Management
Assess proposed AI for legal and claims support, covering data access, clear limits and human review.
Logistics & Distribution
Examine proposed AI for delivery and stock support, covering data access, limits and review by staff.
Insurance & Loss Adjusting
Assess proposed AI for claims administration, covering data access, clear limits and review by staff.
Recruitment & Workforce Agencies
Assess proposed AI for recruitment and staffing, covering data access, clear limits and human review.
Financial Services & Lending
Assess proposed AI for financial customer services, covering data access, limits and review by staff.
Property & Housing Associations
Examine proposed AI for tenant and housing support, covering data access, limits and review by staff.
Charities & Not-for-Profits
Assess proposed AI for charity service delivery, covering data access, clear limits and human review.
Construction & Engineering
Assess proposed AI for construction projects, covering data access, clear limits and review by staff.
Your Questions Answered
Can I submit an AI idea into the Gateway today?
Not yet. The digital Gateway is under development; there is currently no live online submission or automated approval service.
Does an organisational readiness assessment replace this review?
No. Organisational readiness identifies shared foundations; a particular use case still requires its own proportionate assessment.
Is the Gateway tied to one AI provider?
No. The planned process evaluates the proposed use and technology dependencies, regardless of vendor.
Does Gateway approval mean legal compliance?
No. An assessment does not certify compliance or eliminate the organisation’s accountability for lawful, safe use.
What is actually available now?
We can discuss your proposed use case directly. The online assessment workflow, evidence register and automated reports are not yet available.
What will an initiative record contain?
The intended record covers business purpose, risks, feasibility, safeguards, evidence, reviewers, approvals and future reassessment.
How can we discuss our idea?
Contact Mason & Co to describe the proposed initiative and arrange a free consultation.
Give Your Next AI Decision a Clearer Basis
Start with a direct conversation about your initiative. The digital Gateway is still in development; it does not currently accept online submissions or issue approvals.
30 minutes. No charge. No obligation.