Scale Judgment with AI Agents—Audit-Ready in 90 Days. Don’t Scale Headcount

Scale Judgment with AI Agents — Audit-Ready in 90 Days. Don’t Scale Headcount.

In high-stakes workflows, logs persuade insiders—but only a portable Receipt persuades outsiders. QM puts proof at the moment of action: we enforce policy before a step runs and issue a third-party-verifiable Receipt after. Approvals speed up, exceptions go down, and audits become exports—not archaeology.

The problem
Teams take actions that spend, share, publish, or deploy—while checks live in email/Slack and evidence is trapped in vendor-local logs that auditors, lenders, LPs, and partners won’t accept. Off-policy steps slip through, approvals drag, and audits derail launches.

Our insight
Proof is the product. Policy “exists” only when it gates an action and leaves a portable Receipt others can verify—independent of the system that acted. Logs ≠ Receipts.

Solution - What QM does (Approve → Execute → Receipt)

• Encode policy as code (rules, thresholds, approvers, evidence).
• Enforce at runtime (/evaluate allow/deny; step-up to /approve when needed).
• Receipt on success: a signed artifact anyone can verify offline—Action, Inputs, Rules Fired, Approvals, Timestamps, Hash, Export.

Where to start (one decision that matters)

• Private Capital/Finance: NAV-gated capital calls; dual-control wires; marketing-rule substantiation.
• Data & AI Ops: PHI/data-export consent with redactions; agent permissions for high-risk tool calls.
• Software Delivery: Deploy gates (tests/reviews/scans) with a signed deploy Receipt.

What you get (measured outcomes)

• Fewer exceptions (off-policy steps blocked).
• Faster approvals (context + step-up only when needed).
• Audit in minutes (export Receipts instead of digging through systems).
• Partner trust (artifacts your counterparties accept).

How it fits (low-lift, enterprise-ready)

• Drop-in instrumentation for jobs, notebooks, workflows, and agent/tool calls.
• Evidence adapters for IDP, payments, data lineage, LLM gateways, OS permissions.
• Neutral control-plane; append-only Receipts; CLI/SDK for verification; BYOK/residency/redaction options.

Commercials (built to de-risk)

• 90-day paid production deployment to live Receipts in one high-impact workflow, then per-workflow subscription ($10–15k/mo typical) with usage/verification where applicable; enterprise add-ons for assurances, adapters, and audit exports. ROI is tracked from receipt coverage, approval lead-time, exceptions prevented, and third-party acceptance.

Why now
Work is shifting from chat to agentic action. Policy must run before execution and proof must travel after it. Identity and permissions are moving to the edge—this is the missing infra primitive.

CTA — 25-minute working session
Bring one high-impact decision (wire, capital call, model change, PHI export, deploy). We’ll map the gate, define the Receipt fields, and lock acceptance metrics for your 90-day production run. Grab a time on my calendar and let’s ship Approve → Execute → Receipt where it matters most.Eventbrite (Event Page Copy)

If you run high-stakes workflows in PE/VC/IB/Asset Mgmt/FinServ, book a 25-min fit check https://calendly.com/deepak-q-mosaic-ai/45min

In 90 days, gate one high-impact decision with AI agents OR Humans and ship portable Receipts—audit-ready proof, no extra headcount.

Most GenAI “pilots” die in the lab. QM runs in production for 90 days on one high-impact decision—enforcing policy before action and issuing a portable, third-party-verifiable Receipt after.

Approach: Approve → Execute → Receipt — in production, 90 days

Short paragraph (scannable):Run QM in production on a single, high-stakes step. We enforce policy before action and issue a third-party-verifiable Receipt after. Measure receipt coverage, faster approvals, and exception handling. If it works, expand; if not, walk away.

Bulleted micro-summary (for skimmers):

• Who: PE/VC/IB/Asset Mgmt/FinServ leaders with high-stakes workflows
• What: Approve → Execute → Receipt in production, 90 days
• Why: Block off-policy, prove on-policy, be audit-ready—without scaling headcount
• How: Fixed scope, clear acceptance metrics, portable Receipts your partners accept

CTA: Book a 25-min fit check to choose your one decision and lock the 90-day plan.

The 90-Day Production Trial (one decision that matters)

We deploy QM in your tenant (read-only where possible) to gate one high-value decision step and emit Receipts that your partners, auditors, or LPs can verify—without trusting our app or yours.

1) ICP Self-Check — Are you a fit?

You’re likely a fit if 2+ are true:

• You own high-stakes actions (capital calls/wires, portfolio rebalances, model promotions, data exports, marketing-rule releases).
• Outsiders must be convinced (LPs, lenders, auditors, regulators). Logs/screenshots aren’t enough.
• Approval cycles are slow, or off-policy steps occasionally slip through.
• You already run automation/agents and want pre-action policy gates + post-action Receipts.

2) Right Problem — What we actually solve

Email/Slack approvals and vendor-local logs don’t travel. We make policy real at action-time, then leave evidence others can trust—so audits are exports, not archaeology.
(Why we avoid “lab pilots”: most fail due to weak workflow fit, vague goals, and no adoption path. We run domain-specific, workflow-integrated projects that survive.

Why 95% of GenAI projects fail …

)

3) Right Solution — What your 90 days include (and how ROI is measured)

• Policy-Before: Gate one high-impact decision (e.g., fund disbursement, DSCR/covenant check, IC condition, model change, PHI export). Step-up approvals with timers.
• Receipt-After: Signed, portable artifact capturing Action, Inputs, Rules Fired, Approvals, Timestamps, Hash, Export—verifiable offline.
• Acceptance Metrics (agreed Day 1):
• 1. ≥95% Receipt coverage on this corridor
  2. Approval lead-time ↓ (P50/P90 vs baseline)
  3. Exceptions handled (≥5 routed with step-ups + timers)
  4. External acceptance (auditor/partner/LP validates a Receipt)

Commercials: fixed fee for 90 days; converts to per-corridor subscription (bands by monthly Receipt volume). No pressure—if the metrics aren’t met, don’t expand.

4) Why it Sticks — Differentiation that lasts

• Independent control-plane: your runtime isn’t grading its own homework.
• Portable, third-party-verifiable Receipts your counterparties accept.
• Cross-vendor chain of custody: identity, code/data versions, LLM/tool calls, payments, OS permissions—one Receipt.
• Open posture: use your OPA/OTel/Sigstore; QM adds pre-action gates + Receipts and enterprise assurances (BYOK/residency/redactions).

Book a 25-min working session to choose the decision step and lock acceptance metrics for your 90-day production trial.

Title: Approve → Execute → Receipt: 90-Day Production Trial (One High-Impact Decision)

Subtitle:
For PE/VC/IB/Asset Managers/FinServ leaders who need policy before action and a portable, third-party-verifiable Receipt after—in production, not in the lab.

Format: 45-min live clinic (virtual) → scoped 90-day in-production deployment (single corridor)

Why we do 90 days (not gimmicky pilots)

Most GenAI “pilots” fail because they never leave the lab: poor workflow fit, vague ROI, no adoption path. Survivors are domain-specific, workflow-integrated and delivered by focused vendors—exactly this program.

Why 95% of GenAI projects fail …

1) ICP Self-Check — Who should attend?

• GPs/COOs/CFOs/CCOs/Heads of BD (PE/VC/IB), Portfolio/Risk/Compliance leaders (AM/FinServ), and Platform/Data/AI owners.
• You run high-stakes steps (wires, capital calls, model promotions, disclosures, PHI exports).
• You need independent proof outsiders accept.

2) The Problem — Why your current approach stalls

• Email sign-offs and tool-local logs aren’t portable evidence.
• Exceptions trigger fire drills; audits burn weeks.
• You need policy enforcement before the action, and a Receipt after that third parties can verify.

3) The 90-Day Solution — What we deliver in production

• Scope: Gate one decision step end-to-end (policy, step-ups, timers, evidence).
• Receipts: Signed, portable artifacts (Action, Inputs, Rules Fired, Approvals, Timestamps, Hash, Export).
• In-tenant posture: file-first; no write-backs unless you opt-in; BYOK/residency/redactions available.
• Acceptance Metrics:
• 1. ≥95% Receipt coverage
  2. Approval lead-time reduction (P50/P90 vs baseline)
  3. ≥5 routed exceptions closed with approvals & timers
  4. External acceptance: at least one auditor/partner/LP verifies a Receipt

Commercials: fixed 90-day fee; converts to per-corridor subscription (volume-based). If acceptance isn’t met, don’t expand.

4) Why this will stick

• Independent control-plane (trustable by auditors/partners).
• Portable Receipts (verify without calling QM).
• Cross-vendor chain of custody (IDP, data lineage, LLM/tooling, payments, OS permissions).
• Plays well with OSS (OPA/OTel/Sigstore) + enterprise assurances.

You’ll leave with: a one-page fit assessment, a proposed 90-day plan with acceptance metrics, and a redacted sample Receipt to share internally.

Register, then book your 25-min fit session to select the decision criterion and kick off the 90-day production trial.

Suggested tags: private equity, asset management, investment banking, venture capital, compliance, audit, governance, AI agents, risk management, operations