Four ways to start.

A MESA-scored, evidence-required examination of how you govern your AI, delivered board-ready, so you can answer the regulator before the regulator asks.

• The Governance Gap Report, a MESA-scored findings register where every finding traces to evidence.
• The Remediation Roadmap, sequenced Now, Next, and Later with owners and effort bands.
• A one-hour findings readout for your executive team on Day 10.
• A one-page board summary a director can absorb in ninety seconds.
• Scored against a fifty-question MESA instrument across the four layers; no production data leaves your environment.

Best forRegulated institutions with AI in or near production and a real obligation to answer for it: banks, insurers, fintechs, healthcare providers, and public-sector bodies. The land in the engagement ladder, conducted by the person who wrote the frameworks it uses.

Design the target architecture for LLMs, agents, RAG, observability, and the compliance controls, so a team moves from experiment to production without building it twice.

• A current-state and target-state architecture review.
• An LLM routing and model-selection strategy, the NexusCore gateway pattern.
• Agent orchestration and workflow design, the planner-executor-verifier-generator pattern.
• A security, logging, auditability, and observability blueprint.
• An implementation backlog and a clean engineering handoff.

Best forCTOs, product leaders, and platform teams that already know what they want to build and need a sound technical and governance design before they commit. Both strategic and concrete, so the technical value is visible without a full transformation program.

Executive-level guidance and oversight as you operationalize AI: a senior architect in the room for the decisions that are expensive to get wrong.

• Monthly executive advisory calls.
• Architecture and governance reviews on live initiatives.
• Priority support on vendor, model, and policy decisions.
• Review of AI roadmaps, initiatives, and risks.
• Optional participation in steering committees or working groups.

Best forEnterprises running multiple AI initiatives, or internal teams that want a fractional Chief AI Officer rather than a full-time hire. The relationship that keeps a governed platform governed after launch.

Your model risk framework read against OSFI Guideline E-23, two or three of your own systems tested against the handbook’s five artifacts, and a dated gap plan to 1 May 2027, when E-23 takes effect.

• A dated gap plan to 1 May 2027, every gap with one owner and one date, in dependency order.
• Artifact status for the sampled systems: which of the five artifacts exist, which exist in name only, and which are missing.
• A one-page board summary, readable by a director who saw nothing else.
• Your own answers beside the evidence, if you took the free E-23 readiness check first.

Best forFederally regulated financial institutions in Canada with AI or vendor models in the inventory and 1 May 2027 on the calendar. It is the readiness assessment named at the back of OSFI E-23 for AI Systems, delivered personally, not staffed to a bench.

One decision, answered by the person who wrote the frameworks the other four engagements use. Not an examination and not a relationship: an hour of judgment, where an hour of judgment is what the problem actually needs.

• A question you can state in a paragraph, sent ahead so the hour starts with the answer rather than the context.
• A live call with you and whoever else needs to hear it first-hand.
• A written summary of what was said and what it implies, inside two working days, so the decision has a record.
• No report, no roadmap, no scoring. If the answer turns out to need one, you will be told that on the call rather than sold it afterwards.

Best forA design review before it ships, a second read on a question a regulator has asked, or a sanity check on an architecture that is already half built. It is also the honest entry point for anyone who is not ready to commission a Teardown and should not be pushed into one.

Why this one has a number on itThis is the only published price on the site, and the reason is narrow: an hour has no scope to negotiate. The Teardown, the E-23 Readiness Review, the Sprint and the retainer are quoted against work that does not exist yet, so any number posted next to them would be a number nobody could stand behind. That is not true of an hour.