Demonstration · not a client result
AI-readiness and AI-governance assessment what the deliverable looks like
The structure of the deliverable for AI-readiness and AI-governance assessment, how it is produced and how you accept it, with a live specimen generated from the matching free tool’s worked example. Synthetic or permitted data only.
What this page isDemonstration
- Practice
- 02 Management & institutional strengthening
- The deliverable
- 4 sectionsProduced in 5 stages, each with a review point
- Data
- Synthetic or permittedNot a client result
Demonstration of methodSynthetic or permitted data.Not a client result.
The deliverable, section by section.
What you receive, and what each part is for.
AI-use inventory
Where AI is used, by whom, with what data and for which decisions.
DemonstrationReadiness scorecard
Scores by dimension, with the rubric disclosed.
DemonstrationGovernance gap register
Prioritised gaps with owners and the risk each one carries.
DemonstrationOptions and roadmap
What to do first, what can wait and what it takes.
DemonstrationA live specimen.
Generated from the worked example in AI inventory template: synthetic data, real method. Change the inputs in the tool to see your own.
Demonstration · synthetic data · not a client result
Review queue, highest priority first
- 01Screening job applicationsHigh priority · score 11 of 14 · Personal data · decides about people · not reviewedOwner: none. Last reviewed: never.
- 02Beneficiary helpline assistantHigh priority · score 10 of 14 · Sensitive personal data · informs decisions · sampledOwner: Operations manager. Last reviewed: 11 Feb 2025.
- 03Translating field notesMedium priority · score 6 of 14 · Personal data · drafts or assists · sampledOwner: M&E officer. Last reviewed: 1 Jul 2026.
- 04Drafting donor reportsLow priority · score 3 of 14 · Internal, not personal · drafts or assists · always reviewedOwner: Programme lead. Last reviewed: 20 May 2026.
Oversight gaps
- Gap: “Screening job applications” has no owner.Every AI use needs one accountable person.
- Gap: “Screening job applications” decides about people without human review.Add meaningful human review before outcomes affect anyone.
- Check: “Screening job applications” has never been reviewed.
- Check: “Beneficiary helpline assistant” processes sensitive data with partial review.
- Check: “Beneficiary helpline assistant” was last reviewed over a year ago.
The priority score orders your reviews. It is not a legal classification or a compliance rating.
How it is produced, and accepted.
Each stage ends in something you review; acceptance is tested against criteria agreed at the start.
- 01
Mandate
Agree the scope, the decision and the people to involve.
Review pointSigned scope note: the decision, the units in scope and the timeline.
- 02
Diagnostic
Survey and interview users, owners and leadership; review policies.
Review pointDiagnostic instruments signed off.
- 03
Options
Set out governance and capability options with their costs and trade-offs.
Review pointOptions paper reviewed with leadership.
- 04
Validation
Test the findings and priorities with leadership.
Review pointValidation workshop held and comments recorded.
- 05
Implementation
Hand over the roadmap and, if asked, scope implementation separately.
Review pointWritten acceptance and a handover of files and method.
How proof is labelled
- DemonstrationsDemonstrations use synthetic or permitted data.
- Documented experienceDocumented experience is attributed to the organisation that held the work.
- Measured resultsMeasured results are added only once they have been measured; none are shown yet.
What needs to move forward?
Tell us the decision, the challenge or the opportunity. We reply with a scoped approach, a named principal and a fee before any work begins.
No charge to submit an enquiry.