Compliance and scenario boundaries
With legal, risk, and business, define allowed knowledge scope, no-auto-decision zones, and human review gates.
Scale knowledge work and client service under compliance constraints
Internal knowledge was scattered and frontline load was high, while blunt automation was blocked by compliance. Governance first, then auditable knowledge assist.
Challenge
High service load vs. strict compliance
Service and knowledge roles repeatedly searched policy, product, and process docs; quality depended on individual experience. Generic LLM assistants raised compliance, audit, and hallucination risk. Business lacked a clear “allowed / forbidden” boundary.
Approach
Governance → sandbox → controlled rollout
Knowledge quality and retrieval
Curate authoritative sources and update ownership; build traceable retrieval and citation paths — no black-box answering.
Sandbox and acceptance
Pilot with a controlled user group; accept on citation completeness, error handling, and ticket feedback before wider rollout.
Outcome
Auditable frontline assist
- Frontline assist with citations back to authoritative document versions.
- A governance checklist: assist vs. human-required vs. forbidden automation.
- A reusable sandbox → accept → expand rhythm for other lines of business.
Capabilities
AI consultingAI-enabled client serviceData & knowledge governance
Book Discovery
Share industry and goals — we arrange a reference conversation against similar cases.
Client names are anonymized (e.g. “a national retail group”). Representative cases from company materials are client-authorized and desensitized. We do not invent Fortune 500 logos or unauthorized ROI percentages; outcomes are qualitative results and deliverable forms you can discuss in Discovery.