Prepare the evidence position before review.
See what the current record can support before an ATO, acquisition, or customer review begins.
Review this role pathPROCUREMENT & ATO EVIDENCE READINESS FOR AI SYSTEMS
When an AI deal is slowed by evidence,
find the blocker before the reviewer does.
AGICOMPLY shows what your current documents support, what a buyer or reviewer will challenge, and what to fix first.
FIRST STEPReviewer Evidence Check
FIXED SCOPE$750
DELIVERYThree business days
SOC 2 readiness for AI SaaS: The $3,500 ATO Readiness Baseline is the complete five-deliverable evidence engagement.See the complete Baseline →
AGICOMPLY.com explains the engagement, deliverables, and assurance boundary. App.AGICOMPLY.com is the controlled workspace authorized teams use to submit evidence, assign framework scope, review mappings, compare versions, and assemble the final package.
ATO READINESS BASELINEPOINT-IN-TIME
REDACTED SYSTEM · VERSIONED REVIEW PACKAGE
Point-in-time evidence summary
Supplied evidence
Versioned requirement
Reviewer examination
Framework version pinneddocumented
Source identity recordeddocumented
Mapping decision preserveddocumented
Source and evidence hashes recorded
9f86d081…BUILT FOR PROCUREMENT REVIEW
Inspect the proof before you rely on the company.
NIST AI RMF · NIST SP 800-53 · FedRAMP baseline language · OMB 2025 AI governance and acquisition memoranda · EU AI Act documentation context. References describe review language, not certification or endorsement.
FOUNDER-LED AND TRANSPARENTNew company.
New company.
Public method.
Direct accountability.
AGICOMPLY was formed in Pennsylvania in February 2024. Founder Mark Gomez leads product direction, assurance methodology, customer discovery, and commercial delivery. The company is operational and accountable for a public, bounded method that buyers can inspect before engagement. Customer history, certifications, approvals, and endorsements are never implied or borrowed.
Before you buy, inspect the completed sample, verification surfaces, public assurance claims, data boundary, and the person accountable for the work.
WHO THIS IS FOR
Find your role before you choose a review path.
The Baseline remains fixed in scope. Your starting point depends on the responsibility you carry into the review.
Bring one AI system into a defined review scope.
Organize the policies, records, owners, technical artifacts, framework version, and open conditions tied to a specific AI system and use case.
Review this role pathSee what evidence supports each requirement.
Connect supplied technical and governance records to the requirements in the assigned framework version, then isolate what is missing, stale, or unclear.
Review this role pathAdd a bounded AI evidence workstream.
Support an existing legal, advisory, assessment, or assurance engagement with a defined AI Evidence Appendix.
Review this role pathILLUSTRATIVE PRODUCT SEQUENCE
From supplied artifact to reviewer-reconstructable proof.
Follow one evidence relationship from intake through human acceptance, package issuance, and renewed examination after a material change.
ASSURANCE RELIANCE RECORDASSEMBLING
CURRENT EVENT · 01
Artifact received
A supplied record enters the bounded review scope.
- Artifact
- Illustrative Human Oversight Procedure
- Review requirement
- Human oversight measures
- Evidence relationship
- NOT YET ESTABLISHED
- Reviewer state
- Pending
- Record identity
- Pending content identity
What the sequence establishes
The issued package preserves what was accepted at that point in time. A later artifact change does not rewrite history; it records that equivalent current reliance requires renewed reviewer examination.
REVIEW CONTEXT
What review is approaching?
Selecting a context changes the evidence questions and common dependencies. It does not establish legal applicability, certification, or control effectiveness.
SELECTED REVIEW CONTEXT
Federal acquisition evidence position
Organize the supplied record around acquisition questions, system ownership, security evidence, human oversight, and current package limitations.
BOUNDED
- What exact AI system and use case is being offered?
- Which supplied artifacts support the vendor statements under review?
- Who accepted each relationship, and with what limitations?
- AI system description
- Security and privacy records
- Human-oversight procedure
- Testing and approval records
- Unclear system boundary
- Unsupported vendor statements
- Missing ownership records
EVIDENCE POSITION
Evidence availability is not evidence readiness.
Move between the two states to see what changes when the supplied record becomes a bounded, reviewer-readable package.
CURRENT CONDITION
The organization has evidence, but no defensible evidence position.
Reviewers must reconstruct scope, ownership, evidence identity, and support relationships from disconnected materials.
PACKAGE IDENTITYNOT ESTABLISHED
Distributed across folders, email, and questionnaires.
Evidence may describe multiple versions or environments.
No attributable reviewer acceptance or limitations.
Source authority and current responsibility are uncertain.
Missing, stale, or contradictory support is not isolated.
No point-in-time manifest or reproducible review record.
LIVE PACKAGE ISSUANCE
See a reviewer-ready package take shape.
The illustrative console assembles a bounded evidence position. It does not certify compliance, issue an ATO, or establish operating effectiveness.
AGICOMPLY · PACKAGE ISSUANCE RECORDBOUNDARY RECORDED
CURRENT EVENT · 01
System boundary recorded
One AI system, use case, owner, deployment context, and review boundary are identified.
PACKAGEARB-2026-0041
ARTIFACTS0
ACCEPTED RELATIONSHIPS0
OPEN CONDITIONS0
PACKAGE STATEASSEMBLING
RECORD HASHPENDING
TAMPER-EVIDENT EVENT RECORD
001
system.boundary.recordedcurrentHistorical acceptance and current reliance remain distinct.
An issued package records what was accepted at that point in time. A changed artifact triggers renewed examination rather than silently carrying the prior conclusion forward.
GOVERNED COMPLIANCE CATALOG
Preserve the context behind every review conclusion.
A framework name alone is not enough. Reviewers need to know which version was used, what source was reviewed, what requirements were in scope, and which evidence relationships were accepted.
Pin the framework version used for review.
Record the assessment date, scope basis, and exact framework version relied upon without overwriting prior assignments.
Examine this assurance propertyPreserve the identity of the reviewed source.
Associate authoritative source location, content identity, and attributed review with the framework version used in the package.
Examine this assurance propertyKeep incomplete catalog content out of live use.
Publication gates require source attribution, review decisions, control relationships, evidence guidance, and applicability coverage.
Examine this assurance propertyKeep earlier assessments reconstructable.
Updated interpretations require a new version, preserving the content and scope relied upon by prior point-in-time reviews.
Examine this assurance propertyTHE BASELINEA bounded evidence package.
A bounded evidence package.
Preserved at the version used for review.
AGICOMPLY organizes supplied evidence into a point-in-time AI assurance package tied to the framework version and assessment date used for review. The engagement identifies what is present, how it supports the requirements in scope, what remains unclear, and what to address next.
Explore the engagementFIVE DELIVERABLES
What you receive.
01
Evidence Inventory
A structured register of supplied artifacts, their source, format, date, owner, and content hash.
02
Mapping Summary
Human-verified links between supplied evidence and the review requirements within the agreed scope.
03
Gap Register
A bounded record of missing, unclear, stale, or insufficiently supported evidence items.
04
Ordered Remediation Plan
Sequenced evidence actions organized around review dependencies and submission priorities.
05
Chain-of-Custody Statement
A record of evidence handling, SHA-256 content hashing, and review activity during the engagement.
CONTROLLED EVIDENCE WORKFLOWTraceability with version context
Traceability with version context
and human judgment intact.
Hybrid evidence candidate mapping accelerates organization; human verification determines which relationships belong in the review package and records the limitations of that decision.
Review methodologyAppend-only, tamper-evident audit recordsReview activity is recorded without overwriting prior entries.
Governed framework versioningPublished catalog content is protected from silent rewriting; updated interpretations require a new version.
Authenticated, tenant-segregated accessAccess controls and Postgres RLS support tenant separation.
WHERE AGICOMPLY FITS
Your current tools may collect evidence. The next question is whether it survives review.
Vanta, Drata, Credo AI, Monitaur, Holistic AI, and RegScale operate in important upstream layers. AGICOMPLY provides the fixed-scope reviewer handoff that can sit after them.
Vanta and Drata
Recurring compliance operations, evidence collection, continuous monitoring, and audit workflow.
Compare the assurance stackCredo AI, Monitaur & Holistic AI
Enterprise AI inventory, governance, policy, risk, regulatory context, monitoring, and lifecycle records.
Compare the assurance stackRegScale
Continuous controls monitoring, cyber GRC, compliance-as-code, and broader ATO or RMF workflow.
Compare the assurance stackAGICOMPLY · $3,500 fixed scope
One bounded evidence package stating what supplied artifacts support, what remains unresolved, and what must be fixed first.
Compare the assurance stackREVIEW CONTEXTS
Start with the evidence problem already slowing the review.
Each path uses the same $3,500 fixed-scope Baseline. The review context changes; the evidence method does not.
SOC 2 Readiness for AI SaaS
Control and operating-period evidence organized before an independent CPA examination or enterprise customer review.
Review this pathEuropean AI Procurement Evidence
A bounded, reviewer-facing evidence package for AI vendors answering European procurement, customer-assurance, and EU AI Act documentation requests.
Review this pathArticle 50 Evidence Readiness
Disclosure, marking, detector testing, publication, and approval evidence organized for reviewer examination.
Review this pathFederal AI Procurement Readiness
Evidence packages aligned to the review language used in acquisition, ATO, NIST AI RMF, and NIST SP 800-53 contexts.
Review this pathCritical Infrastructure AI
Point-in-time evidence packages for operational AI used in regulated and high-consequence environments.
Review this pathPartner Evidence Workstream
A bounded, white-label AI Evidence Appendix for advisers, assessors, law firms, and assurance teams.
Review this pathAI ASSURANCE SEARCH PATHS
Evidence answers for the questions buyers ask before engagement.
These pages explain how AGICOMPLY approaches AI ATO readiness, procurement evidence, chain of custody, version-aware scope, and human-verified control mapping.
SOC 2 readiness assessment for AI companies
Prepare system-boundary, control-design, operating-period, and AI-specific evidence before a CPA examination or enterprise security review.
Examine the evidence approachAI ATO readiness assessment
Establish what supplied evidence supports an ATO or procurement review before the reviewer has to reconstruct it.
Examine the evidence approachAI procurement evidence package
Organize system records, framework-version scope, control mappings, gaps, remediation priorities, and chain-of-custody properties into one bounded package.
Examine the evidence approachEU AI Act procurement evidence for vendors
Prepare system identity, role and scope records, buyer-requested documentation, Article 50 evidence where applicable, data-handling conditions, gaps, and accountable decisions for European review.
Examine the evidence approachAI chain-of-custody statement
Document how supplied evidence was identified, hashed, mapped, reviewed, and included in the point-in-time package.
Examine the evidence approachVersion-aware AI assurance
Preserve which framework version, source, requirement, reviewer decision, and assessment date each included conclusion depended on.
Examine the evidence approachHuman-verified AI control mapping
Use deterministic candidate mapping for organization while preserving attributable reviewer acceptance and limitations.
Examine the evidence approachPROCUREMENT EVALUATION ENVIRONMENT
One place to inspect the proof, evaluate the boundaries, and obtain internal approval.
The Procurement Vault consolidates commercial scope, assurance materials, security and privacy statements, the Evidence Standard, the Evaluation Packet, and the Internal Approval Brief.
CLAIM → VERIFICATION → LIMITATION
Apply the same evidence standard to AGICOMPLY.
The Public Assurance Register exposes implementation status, verification method, evidence reference, review date, and limitation for every material public claim. The Package Verifier demonstrates independent manifest integrity comparison without exposing customer records.
FOUNDER EVIDENCE TRIAGE
Could a reviewer reconstruct the evidence position for one AI system?
Bring one active AI review, the review type, and the decision date. Mark will confirm whether the $750 Reviewer Evidence Check fits before any evidence is accepted.