Using AI is easy. Being able to answer for it is harder.
Organizations need to move from informal AI use to governance they can demonstrate. We design the platforms, assessment workflows, risk dashboards and evidence environments that make AI use visible, reviewable and manageable.
For companies, institutions, advisers and technology providers that must show how AI is controlled. We build the infrastructure through which legal counsel, auditors and governance experts apply their methods: we do not replace them.
AI enters an organization before anyone decides to adopt it.
Each tool, screening system or supplier feature looks limited on its own; together they create an environment no one fully understands. Readiness exists when the organization can show how AI is assessed, approved, monitored and corrected in practice.
Systems no one has recorded, and so no one can govern.
Several teams carry part of the process while no one owns the whole.
Responsible AI principles that never reach procurement, development, data use or routine work.
Documentation collected after the tender, audit or client request has already arrived.
A human named as responsible, with no defined point or information to intervene.
One record of systems, models, suppliers, purposes, owners and assessment history.
AI, Data & AutomationConfigurable questions, scoring logic, risk categories, evidence and expert validation.
Digital Products & IT PlatformsRegistration, review, approval and reassessment, with evidence and decisions kept on record.
AI, Data & AutomationViews of risk, maturity and remediation, including anonymized national analysis.
Digital Products & IT PlatformsResponsible AI policies, assessment reports and improvement roadmaps that connect gaps to owners and priorities.
Publications & Layout DesignPractical training for leadership, employees and governance teams on responsible use.
Institutional Communications & CampaignsAlso vendor due diligence, human oversight design, incident and change management, explainers, workshops and scenario-based training.
We map where AI is already used, including third-party tools and experiments. The register becomes the source of truth, with an owner for every system.
The methodology decides what is assessed, which evidence is required and what stays private. The platform supports governance: it does not invent it.
Assessment reflects the context and consequences of each use, so lower-risk uses are not forced through the process meant for significant decisions.
Automated output is marked as automated. Legal, ethical and technical conclusions stay with qualified experts, who can validate, challenge or override.
Every claim is connected to documentation, and governance continues as models, suppliers and data change. We measure demonstrated control, not documents created.
Spontan has undergone a structured AI readiness and governance assessment with Comply On AI. It examined how AI is used across the company, where responsibility sits and which documentation, controls and improvements are needed, because an organization should not advise others to govern AI while treating its own use as informal.
A platform where organizations register AI systems, complete assessments, upload evidence and receive risk results and improvement roadmaps. Comply On AI experts validate results in a dedicated workspace, and private data stays separate from anonymized national analysis.
Complex legal and policy material turned into a multilingual system with a searchable glossary, a 25-question self-assessment and custom content management, handed over with full source code, a 100-page technical manual and training.
As technology, platform, workflow-design or communications partner, subcontractor or local implementation partner.
Governance is the wider system for identifying, assessing, approving and monitoring AI. Compliance asks whether specific legal, contractual or policy requirements are met.
Yes: inventories, assessment modules, scoring, evidence repositories, dashboards and expert-validation workflows. The methodology and legal criteria come from the responsible governance experts.
A platform can apply approved rules and scoring logic to support an initial classification, but not as a substitute for qualified review where the context requires it.
No. We are not legal counsel, a regulator or a certification body; legal, audit and specialist conclusions come from qualified experts.
A platform, assessment, policy or training program: share the use cases, sector, current controls and governance objective, and we will set out the technology, workflows, documentation and expert involvement it needs.