AI security clearance for CISOs
Your AI Committee needs a defensible record before every AI system ships. Drel gives you the structured clearance decision — threat model, control plan, evidence gaps, and signed disposition — that turns AI security review from an informal process into a governed one.
The CISO's AI governance problem
AI systems are shipping faster than security governance can keep up. Most organisations are running AI through an informal process — a security architect reviews it, a committee approves it in a meeting, and the evidence trail lives in a slide deck or a Confluence page.
When a regulator asks “what did you assess before this AI system went to production, and how did you decide?”, a slide deck is not a defensible answer. A structured clearance record with a named decision, dated evidence, and signed dispositions is.
What Drel gives your AI Committee
Drel produces a per-system clearance record that the AI Committee can review, sign, and file. The record contains:
- A system-specific threat model — not a generic checklist
- A required controls list with lifecycle gates and evidence requirements
- A control gap analysis — what is missing or not yet evidenced
- A clearance decision: Proceed, Conditional, Restricted Pilot, Hold, or Decline
- Named conditions and re-assessment triggers
- A multi-party sign-off record — who reviewed, when, on what version
The record exports as a PDF evidence pack suitable for board reporting, audit files, and regulatory submissions.
Framework coverage that matters to regulators
Every Drel clearance record maps controls to the frameworks your regulators care about: ISO/IEC 42001 (clauses 6 and 8), EU AI Act (Article 9 risk management), NIST AI RMF, OWASP LLM Top 10, and OWASP Agentic Top 10. The evidence pack includes this mapping so your governance record is framework-referenced from day one.
Scale across the portfolio
As AI adoption scales, the volume of systems requiring review grows. Drel structures the review so a security architect can complete one in 2–4 hours, and the committee review is asynchronous — reviewers see the evidence pack directly, comment on specific sections, and sign off without needing a synchronous meeting for every system.
The dashboard gives you portfolio-level visibility: what is under review, what is conditional, what has re-assessment triggers that have fired, and what is blocking production release across all systems at once.
What Drel does not replace
Drel is a design-time governance tool — it works from documentation and architectural descriptions. It does not replace runtime AI monitoring, AI Security Posture Management tools, or penetration testing. It is the design-time layer that produces the clearance record your committee signs before a system ships.