Appearance System

Two ways to begin. One named system.

A Review establishes the intervention question and evidence position. A full AGDA® Assessment examines the defined system, pathway and scenario. Either can be the starting point.

Discuss your system View sample verdict
Where should we begin?

Two starting points.

Neither is a prerequisite for the other.

Choose by the intervention question and available evidence.

  1. Route A · Preliminary

    Intervention Readiness Review

    Appropriate when
    You need to establish the material intervention question for one system, or clarify its scope and evidence position.
    Explore the Review
  2. Route B · Full assessment

    AGDA® Assessment

    Appropriate when
    The system, pathway and scenario are defined, and relevant evidence access is available.
    Explore the Assessment

A Review may recommend a full Assessment but does not commit you to one or determine its verdict. Scope, availability and delivery arrangements are confirmed before an engagement is accepted.

Current engagements

The two engagements in full.

Fees are indicative ranges. Initial pricing remains subject to market validation.

Route A · Preliminary engagement

Intervention Readiness Review

A focused entry engagement to determine whether a selected system presents a material intervention question and whether a full AGDA® Assessment is justified.

Indicative fee

£20,000 to £35,000 + VAT

The proposal confirms the fee.

Start here when

The system is newly identified, the evidence position is unclear, or you need a documented basis for deciding whether this one system warrants a full Assessment. If the system, pathway and scenario are already defined and evidence access is available, discuss a full Assessment directly.

What it decides

Whether the selected system carries a material intervention question, and what you would need to assess, and to have access to, before relying on the answer.

What you receive

  • A concise executive review stating what needs to be assessed and why it matters.
  • The evidence and access position: what exists, what is missing and who would need to take part.
  • A recommendation on whether a full AGDA® Assessment is warranted, and the proposed scope if it is.

What you keep

The executive review stands on its own: a stated intervention question for the system, the preliminary chain, the evidence you hold and the gaps, and a scoped recommendation. It supports prioritisation and budget decisions whether or not a full Assessment follows.

Scope

  • One proposed system.
  • Limited stakeholder access.
  • Preliminary intervention-chain mapping.
  • Review of the evidence you already hold.
  • A material hypothesis and an assessment recommendation.

Not included

The Review does not include the AGDA® verdict, the SEDI findings or signed SEDI result records. It is not a discounted AGDA® Assessment.

Timing

Scope, access and timing are agreed in the proposal.

Route B · Full assessment

AGDA® Assessment

A formal assessment of Intervention Readiness for one named consequential AI-enabled system, examined through a defined decision or action pathway and a specified intervention scenario.

Indicative initial range

£75,000 to £95,000 + VAT

The proposal confirms the fee.

Start here when

The system, pathway and scenario are defined, the stakeholders and evidence are accessible, and the decision cannot wait for a preliminary review.

What it decides

Whether the agreed pathway can continue operating under its present intervention arrangements, and what has to change before the organisation relies on it.

Full-assessment deliverables

  • The defined scope: system, pathway, scenario, boundaries, dates and material assumptions.
  • An evidence register with provenance and material gaps.
  • SEDI findings and an analysis of the intervention chain.
  • An Intervention Readiness verdict, its confidence basis and material limitations.
  • An executive interpretation, priority findings and practical remediation priorities.

Signed SEDI result records are not a standard deliverable. They may be supplied only under an approved output-access arrangement, where the engagement terms provide for them and the delivery configuration supports them.

Cryptographic verification establishes the integrity and provenance of an assessment artefact within the scope of the verification process. It does not independently establish the truth of every underlying finding.

What you keep

The full package: scope record, evidence register, SEDI findings, the verdict with its confidence basis and limitations, executive interpretation and remediation priorities.

Scope

  • One named AI-enabled system and its operating version.
  • One defined consequential decision or action pathway.
  • One specified intervention scenario and trigger.
  • Relevant business, risk and technology stakeholders.
  • Structured interviews, walkthroughs and review of relevant evidence.

Separately scoped

Connected systems, additional scenarios and implementation work are scoped separately. It is not regulatory certification.

Full list of separately scoped work

Additional systems, pathways or scenarios, enterprise-wide inventory, governance redesign, legal opinion, full regulatory compliance assessment, model validation, penetration or cybersecurity testing, software development, implementation and remediation delivery are separately scoped. It is not regulatory certification.

Timing

Once an engagement begins, a standard assessment is estimated to run over approximately four weeks, subject to scope, stakeholder access and evidence readiness. The proposal sets the detailed timetable.

The final fee reflects the agreed scope and assessment boundary, stakeholder involvement, the evidence position and the depth of investigation required. The proposal confirms the scope, outputs, fee, terms and timetable. Contact us to discuss scope and availability. We confirm delivery arrangements and a start date before accepting an engagement.

Discuss your system View sample verdict

What the standard assessment includes and excludes.

One named system does not mean unlimited pathways or scenarios. The conclusion applies to the agreed conditions and evidence. Additional systems, scenarios or implementation work require separate agreement.

Included
  • One named AI-enabled system, one defined consequential pathway and one specified intervention scenario.
  • Relevant business, risk and technology stakeholders.
  • Structured interviews and walkthroughs.
  • Review of relevant evidence.
  • Intervention-chain analysis and the AGDA® assessment.
  • Executive-level findings and the defined assessment artefacts.
Excluded unless separately contracted
  • Enterprise-wide AI inventory or organisation-wide governance redesign.
  • Legal opinion or full regulatory compliance assessment.
  • Model validation, penetration testing or cybersecurity testing.
  • Software development, technology implementation or remediation programme delivery.
  • Unlimited interviews, additional unrelated systems or ongoing programme management.
  • Formal regulatory certification.

How a full assessment runs.

Four activities. Once an engagement begins, a standard full assessment is estimated to run over approximately four weeks, subject to scope, stakeholder access and evidence readiness. The proposal sets the detailed timetable.

Four activities, in order. No fixed duration is assigned to any one of them.
  1. 01

    Agree scope.

    Confirm the named system, the consequential pathway, the intervention scenario, system boundaries, stakeholders, evidence requirements and timing assumptions.

  2. 02

    Examine evidence.

    Structured interviews and walkthroughs with the people who run the system, and review of the records, logs, exercises and decisions that bear on each stage.

  3. 03

    Assess the intervention chain.

    Analyse Detect, Escalate, Decide and Intervene against the available time, the dependencies between stages and the evidence behind each, using the AGDA® methodology.

  4. 04

    Issue the agreed outputs.

    Review factual challenges and further evidence, finalise the assessment, for which Intervene retains responsibility, and deliver the outputs listed in the engagement scope, with an executive readout.

Preparation, approval and issue are distinct steps. Signed SEDI result records are not a standard deliverable.

Who should be in the conversation.

An assessment is rarely bought by one person. The preferred configuration brings three owners together. Legal, compliance, enterprise risk, internal audit and procurement join as required.

  • A senior risk or control sponsor

    Chief Risk Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, Head of Operational Resilience, Head of Model Risk or Head of Technology Risk.

  • The operational owner of the use case

    Head of Payments, Fraud, Financial Crime, Credit, Lending, Wealth, Trading, Treasury or Customer Operations.

  • A technology, AI or data owner

    AI platform owner, data and AI leadership, engineering, product or architecture leadership.

Where we are starting.

Our initial commercial focus is large UK and European regulated financial institutions, on consequential pathways such as:

  • Payments: routing, release or rejection, transaction prioritisation, real-time decisioning.
  • Fraud and financial crime: detection, transaction monitoring, case prioritisation, customer restrictions.
  • Credit and lending: credit assessment, affordability, credit-limit decisions, customer risk classification.
  • Wealth and investment: recommendations, portfolio decisions, suitability, risk alerts.
  • Treasury and markets: trading recommendations, automated execution, liquidity decisions, market-risk responses.

Financial services is the proving ground, not the limit. Other sectors are discussed case by case.

If your work puts you close to boards, risk leaders or accountable executives who should face this question, the Intervention Readiness Network explains how the question can be put in front of them without becoming a sales role.

How the engagement is controlled.

  • Authority.

    Intervene retains Assessment Authority: over who may perform an assessment, the methodology they apply, conflicts of interest, the evidence requirements, and whether a conclusion is issued. Issuance requires approval separate from the assessor's own judgement.

  • Independence.

    Facts can be corrected. Evidence can change the judgement. The judgement itself is not negotiated. Agreement with the conclusion or a favourable result is not a deliverable or an acceptance criterion.

  • Signed records.

    Signed SEDI result records are not a standard deliverable (see the deliverables above). A signed record is not by itself an issued assessment; issue is a separate, controlled step. The signature covers specified records, not every item displayed in a report or included in an export. What verification establishes.

Beyond one system.

Neither of the following is a standard package today. Both are scoped separately, informed by what initial engagements establish.

Structured Multi-System Assessment. Connected systems or business areas assessed with a consistent method, recognising shared evidence, dependencies and stakeholders. There is no standard multiplier or published tariff.

Standing Intervention Readiness Capability. Scheduled or material-change reassessment for organisations that need repeated evidence. A later development; scope and terms will be defined after initial paid engagements.

Frequently asked questions.

Is the Intervention Readiness Review a full AGDA® Assessment?
No. The Review is a standalone executive review of one system: the intervention question, the preliminary chain, the evidence you hold and the gaps, and a scoped recommendation. It supports prioritisation and budget decisions on its own. It does not include the AGDA® verdict, the SEDI findings or signed SEDI result records.
Do we need a Review first?
No. If the system, intervention question and assessment scope are sufficiently clear, and relevant evidence access is available, we can discuss a full AGDA® Assessment directly. The Review is a separate preliminary engagement for organisations that need to establish those foundations.
Can a client challenge the conclusion?
Yes. A client can correct facts, challenge interpretation and provide additional evidence. Intervene evaluates those submissions and retains responsibility for the final judgement. The judgement itself is not negotiated.
Does verification prove readiness?
No. For signed SEDI result records, verification checks the signature and the integrity of the records covered by the attestation. It does not prove the truth of the underlying evidence, validate the methodology or guarantee future intervention.
Does AGDA® monitor a live system?
No. AGDA® is a scoped assessment of one named system, pathway and scenario. Ongoing monitoring, software integration and remediation implementation are outside the standard engagement.

Bring a named system, its decision, and the intervention question.

We can then establish whether a Review or a full assessment is the appropriate next step, and confirm delivery arrangements and a start date in the proposal. Review the sample verdict first if you want to see the shape of a finding.

Discuss your system View sample verdict