Architecture & Systems Review
We map your current data platforms, core systems and integration points to understand what an AI system would actually sit on top of, and where the real constraints are: latency, access control, data residency.
Service
Before you commit budget to a build, get a structured, vendor-neutral read on what's actually worth automating, what your data will support, and what the regulatory picture requires before go-live.
What it is
Most AI initiatives at financial firms start with a vendor demo or a mandate from the board, not a structured assessment of what the organization's data and workflows can actually support. The result is either a pilot that never reaches production, or a system that reaches production and then fails an internal model risk review six months later. An AI strategy audit is the step most teams skip: a structured, engineering-led assessment of your current systems, data quality, and candidate use cases, before anyone writes a line of production code.
We spend two to three weeks with your team: architecture reviews, data-quality sampling, interviews with the analysts or ops staff who would use the system, and a read of your existing model risk and compliance posture. The output is not a slide deck of possibilities; it is a ranked list of use cases with a build-vs-buy call attached to each one, a realistic view of what your data can support today versus what needs remediation first, and a compliance map showing which candidate systems would fall under EU AI Act high-risk obligations, DORA ICT risk requirements, or your existing model risk governance framework.
The audit is deliberately vendor-neutral. We are not selling a platform or a model subscription, so a use case that should be shelved gets shelved in the report, not massaged into a pilot. Where a use case is worth pursuing, the roadmap that comes out of the audit becomes the scope document for a prototype or a full build, with the risk classification and data gaps already identified rather than discovered mid-project.
What we build
We map your current data platforms, core systems and integration points to understand what an AI system would actually sit on top of, and where the real constraints are: latency, access control, data residency.
Sampling and profiling of the data behind each candidate use case: completeness, point-in-time correctness, and whether it is queryable at all, or trapped in PDFs and shared drives.
Every candidate use case scored against effort, data readiness, regulatory exposure and expected impact, ranked into a sequence rather than a wish list.
A read of which systems would fall under EU AI Act high-risk obligations, GDPR data-processing requirements, or DORA ICT third-party risk rules, mapped before scope is locked, not after an internal audit flags it.
For each prioritized use case, a clear call on whether an off-the-shelf tool, a vendor API, or a custom build is the right fit, with the total cost and lock-in risk of each option laid out.
An assessment of your existing model risk management framework, or the gap where one should be, so any system we help you build has a home in your governance process from day one.
Structured conversations with the analysts, underwriters or ops staff who would actually use the system, surfacing the workflow reality that a systems review alone will miss.
How we work
Align on the two or three business questions the audit needs to answer, and the systems and data sources in scope.
Architecture walkthroughs, data sampling and access reviews across the systems in scope.
Structured sessions with the people who would use or govern the resulting system.
Cross-reference candidate use cases against EU AI Act risk tiers, GDPR obligations and your internal model risk policy.
A ranked roadmap, a build-vs-buy recommendation per use case, and a presentation to your leadership and technical stakeholders together.
What to expect
2‑3 weeks
from kickoff to final readout, not a multi-month engagement
8‑15
candidate use cases typically assessed and ranked per audit
1 roadmap
sequenced, with build-vs-buy and compliance classification attached to every item


Vendor assessments are scoped to sell you that vendor's platform. We don't sell a platform or a model subscription, so a use case that should be shelved gets shelved in the report. If the right answer is 'buy a tool,' we'll say which one and why, without a licensing fee riding on the answer.
Yes. Credit scoring and life/health insurance risk-pricing sit inside Annex III as high-risk, with one detail people miss: the Act explicitly carves fraud-detection systems out of that credit-scoring category, so an AML or fraud model is usually not high-risk under Annex III itself, even though it still carries GDPR and DORA obligations. We map every candidate use case against the actual classification, not the popular but imprecise version, so you know the real compliance burden before you commit to building.
No. We work from read access to schemas, sampled and anonymized data extracts, and system documentation. For firms under strict data-residency requirements, the whole audit can run against a de-identified sample or inside your own VPC.
That happens, and it is a useful outcome. It has taken a quarter of speculative work off your roadmap instead of a quarter into it. Most audits surface one or two genuinely strong candidates and rule out several others that looked promising in a vendor pitch.
Yes. The compliance mapping we produce is written to hand to whoever owns that review, and we're glad to walk your security or risk team through it directly.
Explore more
A 30-minute call to scope what a first version would look like against your own data and systems.
Book a 30-min intro call