04 Oversee · Fractional AI Governance Advisor
Senior oversight, without a full-time hire.
Most mid-tier firms need consistent AI governance judgement, not a permanent AI governance department. A retained advisor keeps the framework current, reviews new use cases before they reach client work and reports to the partnership in terms it can act on.
How it runs
- Basis
- Monthly retainer
- Rhythm
- Scheduled review cycle plus escalation access
- Reporting
- Partnership or risk committee
- Scope
- Agreed and reviewed each quarter
- Exit
- Framework and records stay with the firm
Who this is for
Firms with a framework in place and no one senior owning it day to day.
- Practices where AI governance has been added to an already full risk remit
- Firms adopting new tools faster than their approval process can absorb
- Leadership teams that want an independent view before scaling a use case
- Firms under PE ownership or consolidation with rising reporting expectations
- Practices that need continuity after an initial governance implementation
Outcomes
What changes for the firm
Oversight that persists
Governance stays live as tools change, rather than decaying between annual reviews.
Faster, safer approvals
New use cases get a clear decision quickly, with conditions attached where they are needed.
Leadership visibility
Regular, readable reporting on AI exposure, controls and roadmap progress.
What Alacrix does
A senior pair of hands on the governance rhythm.
The retainer covers the recurring work that keeps a framework credible: reviewing what is new, checking that controls still operate, maintaining the documentation and reporting honestly on where the firm stands.
- Chair or support the AI governance forum on an agreed cadence
- Review and decide on new tools and use cases against the framework
- Maintain the policy, control set and training as circumstances change
- Sample and test whether controls are operating as designed
- Lead incident and near-miss reviews through to closure
- Prepare partner, risk-committee and client-facing governance reporting
- Advise on roadmap sequencing as AI maturity increases
Retainer scope
What ongoing oversight covers
Scope is agreed at the outset and reviewed quarterly as the firm's AI use develops.
Governance cadence
A standing rhythm of review meetings, evidence checks and reporting, so oversight continues between projects.
New use-case review
Assessment and sign-off of proposed AI use before it reaches client work, with conditions where needed.
Committee reporting
Concise reporting to the partnership, risk committee or board in language that supports a decision.
Policy maintenance
Keeping the framework current as tools, regulatory expectations and client requirements change.
Incident review
Structured review of near misses and failures, with changes tracked through to implementation.
Vendor assessment
Evaluation of new tools and contract terms, including data handling, model change and exit position.
Deliverables
What you leave with
Governed, not generic
Independent judgement, held to the same evidence standard.
The value of an outside advisor is a view that is not shaped by the internal politics of a tool decision - supported by records that show the decision was made properly.
- Every decision is recorded with its reasoning and any conditions imposed
- Control testing produces evidence, not reassurance
- Reporting states residual risk plainly, including where it is accepted
- The firm retains the framework, register and records if the retainer ends
Engagement process
How the work runs
- 01
Establish
Agree scope, cadence, reporting lines and the escalation route into the partnership.
- 02
Operate
Run the review cycle: new use cases, control testing, incidents and documentation upkeep.
- 03
Report
Report to leadership on exposure, control performance and roadmap progress each quarter.
Next step
Keep governance current as your AI use grows.
Retainers usually begin after an audit or a governance implementation, once there is a framework worth maintaining.