Bring your workflow.
Declare its evidence boundary.
When people or AI make a decision, the organisation needs to know which rules were used, what needs review and what can be shown later. EcoKure sits around the workflow you already run and applies the control pack your organisation owns.
A bounded evaluation
Make the next step measurable.
Define the workload, compare the supported method and retain the evidence needed for a release decision.
Select an illustrated object to inspect its role.
01 / 03
One workload. An explicit baseline.
Agree the inputs, intended environment, owner and acceptance criteria. Identify unsupported work and required human review.
Evaluation planThe baseline and measurement method must be agreed for your workload; published synthetic results do not predict its outcome.
Bring the decision you already make.
Start with one real workflow, one accountable owner and one moment where an AI or operator needs to follow a rule. EcoKure sits around it; it does not replace the workflow.
Your systems and company data stay in the boundary you choose.Check the request before it travels on.
It looks up your rule, checks what evidence exists, and gives one of four answers: continue, send for review, stop, or decline to answer.
The decision remains with your named reviewer when the boundary is uncertain.Preserve what happened, while it is happening.
The record keeps which rule version ran, what went in, which way it went and who was responsible, so somebody can retrace it later without asking anyone to remember.
The record is replayable and exportable; it is not a compliance certificate.Choose the problem. Name the owner. Keep the proof.
Start with one workflow where a decision matters, a person can review exceptions and the organisation needs to explain what happened.
-
AI governance
Control AI decisions across the systems you already run.
Regulated teams -
EU AI Act evidence
Keep each duty, the control that meets it and the review connected.
EU deployments -
Regulated life sciences
The evidence changed. What does that affect?
Primary pathway -
Financial services and insurance
The control changed. Which decisions are now unsupported?
Secondary discovery -
Aerospace and safety-critical operations
Should this action be allowed to execute at all?
Longer-term pathway
Two questions. One sensible starting point.
You do not need our vocabulary to find the right first conversation. Choose the workflow, the audience that may challenge it and, optionally, the obligation or policy.
Does any of this describe you?
If none of these is true, we are not useful to you yet, and we would rather say that than take the meeting and find out together.
- A change to a rule, a policy or a reference source has already forced you to work out what it invalidated.
- That work was done by people, from memory and documents, rather than derived from a dependency model.
- You could not quickly reconstruct one specific decision made two years ago from its sources, its output, its review and its final approval.
- You revalidate more broadly than necessary because narrowing the scope is hard to defend.
- An auditor, regulator or customer has asked you to show that a control was operating, not just that it was designed.
- A machine-supported decision in your organisation can cause a physical action, and the permission for it is implicit.
One of them is enough
A single true statement above is a reason for a thirty-minute conversation about that one workflow. Several true statements usually means the cost is already being absorbed somewhere and nobody has named it.
Not sure which one you are?
If a change in rules or evidence has ever forced you to work out what it invalidated, you are in scope regardless of sector.