AI governance assurance
AI governance you can defend
Bias and safety testing for text-generating models, mapped to recognised governance frameworks.
- international instruments analysed
- 49international instruments analysed
- provision-level requirements mapped
- 40provision-level requirements mapped
- anchor frameworks
- 10anchor frameworks
- published bias benchmarks
- 4published bias benchmarks
Frameworks mapped
Assessments cover text-generating models. Independent IBEAI verification is available on request.
The platform
Every audit in one place
One view of what you have registered, what you have run, and what came back.
- Models you have registered
- Each one with the endpoint it runs on and when it was last assessed.
- Every audit, with its score
- Bias and safety results per run, so you can see movement between versions.
- Failed audits, separately
- Counted on their own, because the ones that fail are the ones that need work.
- Reports and framework mappings
- Exportable, and tied to the run that produced them.
How it works
From a model to a defensible report
Every assessment runs the same way, and the report says which requirement each result maps to and how it was measured.
01
Submit a model
A Hugging Face model ID, or your own text-generation endpoint. Credentials are encrypted.
02
Run the tests
Four bias benchmarks and a safety suite. A quick scan returns in under a minute.
03
Map to requirements
40 provision-level requirements across 10 anchor frameworks, each with the basis it was measured on.
04
Receive the report
Scores, findings graded by severity, and prioritised recommendations you can act on.
What you receive
Four things, and what each one is not
Everything an assessment produces, said plainly enough that nobody has to ask what it covers.
- 01An assessment report
- Bias and safety scores, findings graded by severity, and the sample outputs behind each one. Not a certificate, and not a compliance statement.
- 02A framework mapping
- Each of the 40 provision-level requirements marked pass or fail, with the basis it was measured on: direct, derived, proxy, or not measured.
- 03A record you can re-check
- Each completed audit stores a hash of its results, so a later change can be detected.
- 04A verification mark, if you need one
- The IBEAI-verified tier adds independent expert review and audit-grade documentation on top of the report.
Scope
What we assess, and what we do not
The limits matter more than the coverage. Knowing what a report does not cover is what makes the part it does cover worth relying on.
Assessed today
- Chat and completion models
- Models that answer a prompt in their own words — Llama, Mistral, Gemma, Qwen and the like.
- Bias, across four published benchmarks
- WinoBias, StereoSet, CrowS-Pairs and BOLD.
- Safety of generated text
- Toxicity, harmful content, and refusal of unsafe requests.
- Mapping to recognised frameworks
- 40 provision-level requirements across 10 anchor frameworks, each with a pass or fail and the basis it was measured on.
Not assessed
- Models that are not generating text
- Classifiers, embedding models, vision, audio, multimodal and tabular models are refused, with the reason, rather than assessed.
- Fairness as a separate measure
- Nothing here measures fairness independently of bias, so no fairness score is reported.
- Your organisational controls
- Governance processes, training records and sign-off trails sit outside a model evaluation. Advisory work covers those.
- Compliance itself
- An assessment supports a readiness case. It is not a certification, and no regulator has endorsed it.
Hugging Face models run on third-party inference providers, and not every model on the Hub has one. A model no provider currently serves cannot be called, so it is refused with that reason. Models on your own endpoint are unaffected.
Who reads it
Written to be questioned
A governance report is read by people whose job is to find the gap in it. These are the readers it is built for.
- Compliance and risk
- Evidence that maps to a named provision, not a summary.
- Legal counsel
- A record of what was tested, when, and on which version of the model.
- CTOs and engineering leads
- Findings specific enough to turn into work.
- Procurement
- Something to put beside a vendor claim and compare.
- Boards
- A short account of exposure that survives being questioned.
The Fastest Way to Safety and Security
With current discrepancies in religions and political beliefs and aims, identifying common interests is what can progress mutual global goals. The fastest route to safety and security is agreement on shared goals.
At Advanced Ethics AI we support common economic, security, and environmental interests, so that human rights, security, and diversity are achievable collaboratively. These principles then help institutions support and progress business continuity, stakeholder interests, and universal fundamentals of human rights.
The fastest way to safety and security is the focus on mutual goals. Ethics secure the future.
Universal Ethics Through Action
In the interest of international security, Advanced Ethics AI promotes ethics that, through representative inputs and analysis, are universal. We do this through collaboration, capacity development, and an AI API.
AI API
Through a consolidation of global ethics regulations and cross-cultural inputs, the API algorithm supports advanced ethics and truly seamless AI integrations. Our API continues to be developed through policy stakeholders and local citizens.
Collaboration
We determine ethics best practices through religious consolidation, cultural and indigenous collaboration, and integrating mental health. In doing so, Advanced Ethics AI supports anti-bias, security, and the equitable representation of epistemology.
Capacity Development
Via consulting and education, Advanced Ethics AI improves the capacity of individuals and institutions to make more informed, socially conscious decisions. Better quality outputs support sustainable, resilient systems.
Built on an Analysis of 49 International Instruments
Our research decomposes 49 international AI, privacy, ethics, and compliance instruments to the level of individual provisions. The assessment platform implements a subset of that analysis today: 40 provision-level requirements drawn from ten anchor frameworks.
EU AI Act
Binding EU regulation. Provision-level requirements mapped from the Act, under which penalties reach €35M or 7% of global turnover.
GDPR
Binding EU data protection law, including its rules on automated decision-making and profiling.
NIST AI RMF
Voluntary U.S. framework for the governance, mapping, measurement, and management of AI risk.
OECD AI Principles
Intergovernmental principles: inclusive growth, human-centred values, transparency, robustness, and accountability.
UNESCO Recommendation
The first global normative instrument on the ethics of AI, adopted by 193 Member States.
IEEE Ethically Aligned Design
Professional standards for prioritizing human well-being in autonomous and intelligent systems.
The other four anchor frameworks are the national frameworks of Canada, Brazil, China, and the United Kingdom.
Powered by IBEA
International Board of Ethics in AI
We integrate critical pedagogy in capacity development to improve consolidation of information and creative synthesis. We promote political partnerships and mobilize resources — research and publications — so that education has tangible impact.
Learn more about Advanced Ethics AI
Ethics Secure the Future
Run your first AI ethics audit or schedule a demo to learn how Advanced Ethics AI can support your organisation’s goals.