Execution Boundary
Where proposed model or agent behavior becomes consequential action, and whether that boundary can actually prevent inadmissible execution.
Defined System · Defined Boundary · Defined Evidence · Defined Determination
Drift Stack™ + SAQ™ Conformance Review
Make the system prove what it can actually control.
A formal Conformance Review is a scoped technical examination of a defined AI application, agentic system, platform, integration, or deployment to determine whether required execution-control mechanisms actually exist, operate, and remain enforceable under changing conditions.
Formal conformance is not sold as a generic fixed-price package. The required boundary, evidence, tests, and review scope are established first through the $500 Architectural Review & Brief.
The Drift Stack™
Identity → Frame → Boundary → Drift → Correction
Technical examination
What the Conformance Review Actually Examines
Conformance is not established because a system uses the right terminology, has an impressive architecture diagram, produces good model outputs, or maintains extensive logs.
The review examines whether a defined implementation actually enforces the mechanisms required to keep consequential execution admissible under current operational conditions.
Identity & Authority
Whether identity, delegated authority, scope, expiry, revocation, and current permission are validated before consequential execution.
Current Operational State
Whether the system reconstructs and validates the state that exists now rather than relying on stale approvals, assumptions, memory, or earlier conditions.
Evidence & Policy
Whether execution decisions are bound to attributable evidence, applicable policy, freshness requirements, constraints, and explicit reason codes.
Bounded Execution
Whether granted authority is narrowly constrained by action, target, time, value, tool, use, geography, data, and other applicable execution limits.
Receipts & Correction
Whether realized effects are recorded and whether changed authoritative state can invalidate, suspend, reverse, compensate, or escalate execution.
The model may propose.
The system must prove that the proposed action remains admissible before consequence is allowed to bind.
The commercial path
How a Conformance Engagement Begins
Formal conformance cannot be responsibly priced before the system, boundary, maturity, evidence, and required testing are understood. That is why every engagement begins with the Architectural Review & Brief.
Step 1
Architectural Review & Brief
Begin with the $500 private review of the actual system, architecture, proposal, implementation, or problem in front of you.
Step 2
Readiness & Scope
Samirac determines whether formal conformance is appropriate and defines the exact application, execution boundary, evidence, domain profile, and review depth.
Step 3
Scoped Proposal
If conformance is the correct next step, you receive a defined review scope, evidence requirements, testing expectations, commercial terms, and price.
Step 4
Formal Examination
The implementation is examined against the agreed architecture, evidence, execution behavior, negative tests, and applicable conformance requirements.
The Architectural Review does not automatically lead to a Conformance Review.
It may determine that architectural remediation, implementation work, additional evidence, a different engagement, or no additional Samirac work should occur first.
Demonstration, not assertion
What You May Be Asked to Provide
Evidence requirements depend on the approved scope. The formal technical standard defines the deeper requirement set; the items below illustrate the kind of implementation evidence a review may require.
- Architecture and governed-boundary diagrams
- Execution-contract schemas or equivalent runtime decision structures
- Identity, authority, state, policy, and evidence interfaces
- Admissibility decisions and state-transition records
- Grant issuance, verification, expiry, revocation, and replay behavior
- Executor constraint-enforcement behavior
- Execution receipts and proposed-versus-realized evidence
- Correction, reversal, suspension, compensation, and escalation behavior
Evidence must match reality
Documentation alone is not conformance.
Policies, diagrams, prompts, dashboards, vendor claims, and architecture language may describe intended behavior.
The review is concerned with whether the implementation can actually demonstrate required behavior — including refusal, expiry, invalidation, constraint enforcement, receipts, and correction.
A defined result
What You Receive From the Formal Review
A formal review is intended to produce a documented technical determination against the agreed system boundary and scope — not another general consulting conversation.
The deliverable may identify what was examined, what evidence was accepted, which mechanisms were demonstrated, where requirements were not satisfied, and what must occur before a stronger conformance or certification claim can be supported.
Conformant Within Defined Scope
The examined implementation demonstrates the required mechanisms and evidence for the approved system boundary and review scope.
Remediation Required
Material architectural or execution-control deficiencies must be corrected before the system can establish conformance.
Insufficient Evidence / Not Ready
The required mechanisms may exist, but available evidence is not sufficient to prove them, or the implementation is not yet mature enough for formal determination.
Certification Eligibility
Where certification is included in the agreed scope and the system satisfies the applicable requirements, Samirac may authorize the corresponding reviewed-system certification claim under approved terms.
Any conformance or certification claim applies only to the examined system, defined boundary, approved version, and agreed scope.
It does not certify the entire company, every product, every deployment, or every future release.
Why there is no fixed public conformance price
Scope Determines the Engagement
A single agent, a contained internal application, a multi-agent orchestration platform, a financial execution system, and an enterprise deployment do not require the same examination.
Review effort changes with boundary size, implementation maturity, consequence level, number of integrations, evidence quality, domain requirements, execution pathways, negative testing, correction requirements, and certification scope.
That is why Samirac does not publish an artificial one-price conformance package.
The fixed-price entry point
$500
Architectural Review & Brief
One private live review plus a concise written architectural determination of the primary issue and the right next step.
If formal conformance is appropriate, this review gives Samirac the basis to define and price it correctly.
Defined limits
What This Review Is — And What It Is Not
This is
- • A technical architecture and execution-control examination
- • A review against a defined implementation boundary
- • Evidence-based testing of runtime mechanisms
- • A documented conformance determination
- • A possible path to reviewed-system certification
This is not
- • A generic AI safety checklist
- • A prompt or model-quality evaluation
- • A substitute for security or privacy testing
- • A legal, regulatory, actuarial, or insurance opinion
- • A blanket certification of an entire organization
Architecture · Scope · Evidence · Testing · Determination
Think Your System Is Ready for Conformance?
Start by determining whether formal conformance is actually the right next step.
The $500 Architectural Review & Brief examines the real system or problem first. If formal conformance should follow, Samirac then defines the boundary, evidence requirements, review scope, tests, commercial terms, and price.
Formal Conformance Review is scoped and priced only after the system and review boundary are understood.