Independent codebase intelligence for board technology reviews and AI governance attestation. A continuous read of your stack — code, commits, tickets, roadmaps, ownership, data. It surfaces which models run where, on what data, making which decisions — before the board asks.
One conversation. No pitch deck. We'll tell you if we can't help.
Board technology reviews used to be a quarterly check-in. They aren't anymore. AI risk has put a regulatory clock on the conversation, and audit committees, lenders and insurers are pulling the same questions forward. The CEO is being asked to attest to a footprint that lives in the code, not in the deck.
Each of these requires a read that isn't your CTO's quarterly narrative. Independent codebase intelligence answers them on the board's clock.
Which models run where. What data they touch. What decisions they produce. Built for board reporting and EU AI Act risk-tier obligations.
Why each AI integration exists. The sequence of decisions that shaped the platform — surfaced from code, commits, tickets, PRDs and ownership, correlated over time.
What data flows into which model decisions. Where customer, financial and regulated data touch AI components. The map your CDO and audit committee both need.
EU AI Act risk tiering by product. NIST AI RMF alignment. SOC 2, GDPR and PCI gaps surfaced from the code, not from a compliance questionnaire.
What the board approved twelve months ago versus what was actually built. Where the team and the plan align — and where they don't.
Tech debt quantification by domain, in dollars and time. Knowledge concentration and key person risk. Architecture scalability against the strategic plan.
Read-only access to your codebase, commits, tickets, roadmaps and ownership signals. One 30-minute call. Your team keeps shipping.
Deterministic static analysis surfaces what's there. Multi-source temporal correlation ties it together. Every finding maps to your domains and features.
The signed Five Stories for your board. The continuous intelligence layer live in your stack, ready for the next question without another engagement.
The agenda has "AI risk" on it. You'd like to walk in with a baseline that's defensible — not the same narrative as last quarter.
Counsel, audit or lenders are asking attestable questions about AI footprint and technology risk. You need source-traced evidence, not a deck.
You're being asked for a technology attestation as part of a sale, a financing or a major customer contract. Independence is the value, and it has to be designed in.
Your AI footprint is the complete picture of where AI actually runs in your software — which models, in which products, touching what data, making which decisions. An AI readiness assessment surfaces that footprint from the code itself, then maps it to the questions a board, auditor, or regulator will ask. We build it by reading the codebase, dependencies, and configuration directly — not from a questionnaire your team fills out from memory.
Manual inventories catch what people remember to report; they miss the model a team wired in last quarter and the AI buried in a dependency. We read the code, package tree, and integration points to find every AI and LLM call, API, and library in use — including the ones that never made it onto a slide. That gap between the reported AI and the actual AI is usually where the board's real exposure sits.
US AI regulation has fragmented into a state-by-state patchwork — and it's moving, so we don't anchor anything to a single deadline. The rules most likely to reach an ordinary mid-market company are the ones about using AI: NYC Local Law 144 if you use automated tools in hiring, California’s AB 2013 and CPPA automated-decision rules, and Texas’s TRAIGA — plus the EU AI Act if you touch the EU market. The largest frontier-developer laws (California SB 53, New York’s RAISE Act) likely don’t bind you at all. The common thread underneath all of them: you can’t produce the required notices, bias audits, training-data summaries, or risk assessments until you know which AI systems are in your code and what they touch. We produce that read; your counsel maps it to the obligations that apply.
When the CEO has to attest and the board has to rely on it, an answer produced by the same team that built the systems isn’t the strongest ground to stand on. An independent, code-level read is defensible precisely because it isn’t the engineering team grading its own homework — it’s evidence, traceable to the commit, that a board, auditor, or acquirer can trust.
What we lead with
We lead with the read. Independent. Defensible. Yours. We deliver the map. Whether we ride along comes next.
What you do with the read is your call. If you want a partner on what to build next, modernization or strategic options — that's a different conversation, and we can have it. The independence of the read stays intact regardless — which is exactly why your board and your regulator can rely on it.
Two weeks. Fixed price. Read-only. No meetings with your team. One conversation to start — we'll tell you if we can't help.
Get a Read