AI governance evidence for AI Committees and DPOs

Most AI governance programs have a clear process for the approval decision — the AI Committee votes, the DPO signs off, the CISO clears it. What they lack is a structured evidence record to support that decision.

Without a structured record, the AI Committee is approving based on a slide deck or a written description from the team building the system. That is not a defensible governance posture. When an auditor or regulator asks “what did you assess, and how did you decide?”, the answer needs to be a record — not a meeting notes file.

Drel produces a per-system clearance record that serves as the evidence artefact for an AI Committee review. The record contains:

• A structured threat model for the specific AI system
• A required controls list with lifecycle gates (before pilot, before production)
• A control gap analysis — what is missing or not yet evidenced
• A risk disposition memo: Proceed / Conditional / Restricted Pilot / Hold / Decline
• Named re-assessment triggers for when the clearance requires revisiting
• A sign-off record — who reviewed, when, and on what version

The record exports as a structured PDF evidence pack suitable for attachment to governance meeting minutes, audit files, or regulatory submissions.

For organisations pursuing ISO 42001 certification, Drel produces evidence for clauses 6 (planning and risk) and 8 (operation and AI system lifecycle). The per-system risk assessment and control plan are the primary artefacts required for the clause 6.1.2–6.1.4 evidence file.

For the EU AI Act, deployers of high-risk AI systems retain obligations under Article 9 (risk management system) and Article 11 (technical documentation). Drel produces the risk management record and control evidence that supports these obligations. It does not perform conformity assessment — that requires a notified body for applicable systems.

Drel supports the full governance lifecycle from initial review to periodic re-assessment:

1. Security architect submits a review. The architect runs the assessment in Drel, produces the threat model and control plan, and submits the dossier for committee review.
2. Committee reviews the evidence pack. Committee members can comment on individual sections, request changes, and view the control gap list. The record is shared without requiring a Drel account.
3. Sign-off and clearance decision. Configured committee members sign off on the disposition. The sign-off record is versioned and audit-logged.
4. Re-assessment triggers. Named triggers (model change, new tool, scope expansion, scheduled cycle) fire a re-review. The original clearance record is preserved as a version history.

Drel does not certify systems, attest compliance, or guarantee audit outcomes. It produces the structured evidence record that supports your own governance decision. The clearance decision is yours — Drel provides the analytical foundation for it.

For regulated sectors requiring third-party conformity assessment, that process is separate and outside Drel's scope.