Editorial standards
How AegisAI Compliance reviews AI governance content.
AegisAI Compliance publishes practical resources for regulated financial institutions working through AI governance, model risk, vendor oversight, board reporting, and evidence readiness. These standards explain how public content is developed, reviewed, and bounded.
The review process follows the AegisAI methodology used in the readiness calculator: policy and governance, vendor AI risk, model risk, data and consumer impact, board reporting, and evidence readiness. Where a page discusses regulatory expectations, we separate current guidance from legacy references and keep the recommendation tied to reviewable evidence.
Last reviewed: June 18, 2026 by Grant Holloway.
Author and reviewer accountability
Public resources are written and reviewed by Grant Holloway, founder of AegisAI Compliance. Grant's compliance and risk background includes financial-institution model risk management, vendor due diligence, board reporting, and emerging AI governance. Content that discusses assessment logic or governance interpretation is reviewed against the same practical domains used in the readiness calculator.
Review criteria
Each resource is checked for five things before publication: whether the audience is clear, whether the governance claim is supported, whether the recommended evidence can realistically be produced by a bank or fintech team, whether legacy guidance is distinguished from current expectations, and whether advisory limits are stated plainly.
Source standards
Content is grounded in recognized governance and risk-management sources such as supervisory guidance, model risk management expectations, FFIEC examination themes, NIST AI RMF materials, and current AI governance practice. We avoid presenting unsupported speculation as regulatory expectation, and we identify where a resource is informational rather than legal, audit, supervisory, or model-validation advice.
Update and freshness policy
AI governance guidance changes quickly. Regulatory and methodology pages are reviewed at least quarterly, and sooner when material supervisory guidance, model risk expectations, third-party risk guidance, or product workflows change. Resource pages include last-reviewed dates where timing affects interpretation.
Corrections and clarifications
If content is incomplete, outdated, unclear, or inconsistent with cited guidance, we correct the page and preserve the practical takeaway. Significant corrections clarify what changed rather than quietly changing the underlying recommendation. Readers can send correction requests to hello@aegisaicompliance.com.
No overstated claims
We do not claim legal compliance, certification, audit approval, supervisory approval, or guaranteed examination outcomes. Templates and assessments are informational planning tools and should be adapted to institution-specific facts.
Advisory limits
Clear limits matter in a regulated category.
We write for risk, compliance, audit, technology, and executive teams that need usable governance structure. We do not blur the line between practical readiness support and legal, regulatory, audit, or supervisory conclusions.
- AegisAI Compliance does not provide legal advice.
- A readiness score is not a regulatory rating or audit conclusion.
- Templates help organize evidence, but they do not prove compliance by themselves.
- Institutions should review content with qualified legal, compliance, audit, or risk advisors where appropriate.
Feedback and corrections
Questions, corrections, or source concerns can be sent to hello@aegisaicompliance.com. When feedback identifies a material issue, the affected page should be reviewed and updated with clearer language, better sourcing, or a narrower claim.