Business Model · Controlled Access · Advisory

Governance
Architecture
Review

TenantSage™ evaluates how your enterprise AI system handles retrieval-layer enforcement — and delivers a written governance report identifying where your architecture is sound, and where it carries risk.

Engagement Type
Architecture Advisory
Access Level
No System Access Required
Deliverable
Written Governance Report
Prerequisite
Mutual NDA
What This Is

We Audit Architecture.
We Do Not Build Systems.

TenantSage™ is a framework authority — not a systems integrator. The Governance Architecture Review is the only service we offer publicly. It is an independent, expert evaluation of how your AI retrieval layer handles governance — and where it does not.

We examine your architecture against the TenantSage Standard™: a defined set of governance properties that retrieval-layer systems should demonstrate to support legal defensibility in regulated enterprise environments.

The output is a written report you can take to your engineering team, your board, your legal counsel, or your auditor.

What This Is Not

This is an architecture review. We assess design, structure, and governance properties against a defined standard. No access to production systems required.

Not a penetration test. We do not run exploit scans or vulnerability assessments. We evaluate governance logic, not attack surface.

Not a system build. We do not implement, configure, or deploy systems on your behalf as part of this engagement.

Not a compliance certification. The report informs compliance readiness. It is not a formal certification or legal opinion.

Not a legal service. TenantSage™ is not a law firm. The report does not constitute legal advice.

Review Scope

Four Evaluation Domains

Every Governance Architecture Review examines four defined domains. Findings in each are graded and reported in writing.

01

Retrieval-Layer Enforcement

How and where governance rules are applied during query execution. We assess whether enforcement occurs before, during, or after retrieval — and whether any post-retrieval filtering path exists.

  • Query predicate structure and execution order
  • Pre-retrieval vs. post-retrieval filtering risk
  • Role visibility enforcement at the retrieval layer
  • Evidence of atomic vs. sequential evaluation
02

Tenant Isolation Assessment

Whether tenant boundaries are structurally enforced or rely on application-layer logic. We examine data separation, family scoping, and cross-tenant access risk.

  • Tenant boundary implementation (schema vs. application)
  • Family and hierarchy scoping design
  • Cross-tenant data exposure risk profile
  • Identity scoping and session-level enforcement
03

Decoupling Risk Identification

Whether governance and retrieval can be separated — intentionally or through misconfiguration. Decoupled systems create bypass pathways that are often invisible until an incident occurs.

  • Governance-retrieval coupling architecture review
  • Configuration bypass surface analysis
  • Override and precedence rule integrity
  • Legal Hold and temporal validity enforcement paths
04

Written Governance Report

A structured written report delivered to your nominated stakeholders. The report is designed to be actionable for engineering teams and readable for legal counsel, risk officers, and boards.

  • Executive summary with risk tier classification
  • Domain-by-domain findings and evidence
  • Identified risks with recommended remediation paths
  • TenantSage Standard™ alignment scorecard
The Report

A Document Your Board, Legal, and Engineering Team Can All Use.

The written governance report is the sole deliverable. It is structured to serve multiple audiences — from CTO to general counsel — without requiring technical translation.

01

Executive Summary

Overall risk tier (Low / Elevated / High), key findings in plain language, and a recommended course of action.

02

Domain Findings

Detailed findings across all four evaluation domains, with supporting observations and evidence references.

03

Risk Classification

Each identified risk is classified by severity and type — structural, configurational, or procedural.

04

TenantSage Standard™ Alignment

A scorecard measuring your architecture's alignment against the TenantSage Standard™ governance benchmark.

05

Remediation Pathways

For each identified risk, a recommended architectural remediation path — not implementation, but directional guidance.

Governance Architecture Report
CONFIDENTIAL · TenantSage™
Executive Summary
Overall Risk Tier: Elevated
The evaluated architecture demonstrates partial retrieval-layer governance. Three structural risks were identified that may expose the system to cross-tenant data surface under adversarial query conditions.
Domain 01 — Retrieval Enforcement
Findings
Post-retrieval filtering path identified — governance applied after vector search returns candidates.
Role visibility correctly constrained at query input — user scope applied at session level.
Temporal validity applied via application layer — recommend engine-layer enforcement.
Domain 02 — Tenant Isolation
Findings
Family scoping implemented at schema level — structurally sound.
Legal Hold status not evaluated during retrieval — decoupling risk present.
TenantSage Standard™ Alignment
Retrieval-layer enforcementNot aligned
Tenant isolationPartial
Legal Hold enforcementNot aligned
Role hierarchy scopingAligned

ILLUSTRATIVE SAMPLE — NOT ACTUAL CLIENT DATA

Engagement

Advisory-Tier Pricing.
Not Volume-Based.

The Governance Architecture Review is priced as enterprise advisory engagement. Pricing reflects expertise and the value of a written governance finding — not hours or seat count.

Business Model — Governance Architecture Review
TenantSage™ Governance Architecture Review
Delivered under mutual NDA. Written report issued within agreed timeline. Single engagement, fixed scope.
Engagement fee Quoted on Request Fixed fee · Not hourly
Four-domain architecture evaluation
Written governance report
Executive summary + domain findings
Risk classification per domain
TenantSage Standard™ alignment scorecard
Remediation pathway guidance
Delivered to nominated stakeholders
One follow-up session to review findings
Request a Review

No System Access Required

The review is conducted via architecture documentation, design specifications, and structured technical discussion. No access to live systems or production data is required.

NDA Required

All engagements require a mutual NDA prior to any architecture disclosure. This protects both parties. Execute NDA online →

Report Ownership

The written governance report is delivered to the client and is their property. TenantSage™ retains no right to publish findings without explicit written consent.

Why This Matters

What Every Engagement Produces

🏛

You Remain Framework Authority

Every review strengthens TenantSage's position as the governance standard. We do not become embedded in client systems — we evaluate against our standard and maintain independence.

📐

Method Is Applied and Validated

Each engagement applies and refines the TenantSage governance method in a real-world context — without requiring product delivery or system implementation.

📄

Case Evidence Builds Organically

Written reports, under NDA, form an evidence base for future licensing and Standard™ development — building credibility with investors, auditors, and enterprise procurement.

How It Works

Five Steps. No Surprises.

01
Week 0

Initial Enquiry & Scope Confirmation

Submit your review request via email. We confirm scope, timeline, and fee within 2 business days. No commitment required at this stage.

02
Week 1

NDA Execution & Engagement Confirmation

Mutual NDA is executed. Engagement fee is confirmed. Architecture documentation and design specifications are shared by the client under NDA protection.

03
Week 1–2

Architecture Review

TenantSage evaluates the provided documentation across four domains. One structured technical session (up to 90 minutes) may be held to clarify architecture decisions.

04
Week 2–3

Written Report Delivery

The written governance report is delivered to nominated stakeholders in PDF format. All findings are presented with supporting observations.

05
Week 3

Follow-Up Session

A single follow-up session (up to 60 minutes) is included to walk stakeholders through findings and answer clarifying questions. No additional material is produced in this session.

Begin the Engagement

Architecture either supports
governance — or it does not.

The only way to know is an independent review against a defined standard. That is what we provide.