IGSB examines whether governance arrangements can be demonstrated through documentary evidence, accountable decisions, oversight records and traceable review within a defined scope.
The G-Series describes governance expectations. Evidence & Assessment examines what can be demonstrated within information submitted for a defined written engagement.
IGSB considers the presence and clarity of governance controls, the traceability of accountability and the sufficiency of evidenced oversight. Findings are limited to the submitted information and the agreed scope.
The process is evidence-led and implementation-neutral. IGSB may identify evidence gaps, evidence deficiencies, unclear accountability or missing traceability, but does not design or operate an organisation's governance controls through the assessment itself.
IGSB's principles-based governance standards covering board, institutional, technology and AI governance.
View the Standards OverviewThe controlled methodology used to request, organise, examine and record governance evidence within a defined written engagement.
View the G-Series Governance Evidence ProtocolRecords or information submitted to demonstrate how a governance arrangement is defined, operated, reviewed or escalated.
The system, function, decision context, period and evidence boundaries agreed for the written review.
The status assigned to an evidence expectation after submitted information has been considered.
A scope-bound written record of what was evidenced, partially evidenced, not evidenced or not submitted within the information reviewed.
A structured readiness route that supports preparation of documentary governance evidence for defined review. It does not constitute certification, assurance or confirmation of regulatory compliance.
View the ProgrammeA structured record of submitted governance evidence and the evidence position assigned within the defined scope.
View the PassportEvidence submitted to IGSB is considered against six connected principles. These principles support consistent written treatment of evidence but do not create a pass or fail decision.
The information relates directly to the defined scope and the governance expectation being examined.
The source, owner, date, version and relationship to the relevant governance claim or decision can be followed.
Enough information is available to support an evidence position without relying on assertion alone.
The origin, status and integrity of the information can be reasonably understood from the submitted material.
The information reflects the relevant review period or current arrangement, with superseded versions identifiable where applicable.
Policies, records, decisions and oversight information align, or any material difference is made explicit.
Governance evidence may be submitted across several categories. The following examples are indicative and non-exhaustive; relevance depends on the defined scope.
Terms of reference, governance structures, delegated authorities, accountability maps and committee arrangements.
Approved policies, standards, principles, control requirements and documented operating boundaries.
Procedures, control descriptions, approval routes, intervention arrangements and escalation mechanisms.
Decision logs, minutes, approvals, challenge records, review records and evidence of accountable oversight.
Risk assessments, control reviews, compliance records, internal assurance material and audit outputs submitted by the organisation as evidence.
Role requirements, training records, competence expectations and evidence of relevant responsibility or capability.
Evidence may be submitted in appropriate written or recorded formats, including policies, registers, minutes, reports, logs, structured exports and other documentary records relevant to the agreed scope.
Submitted items should be identifiable by title, owner, date or version and, where practical, mapped to the relevant evidence request or governance expectation.
Organisations remain responsible for ensuring that information is disclosed lawfully and that personal, privileged, security-sensitive or commercially restricted material is redacted where it is not required for the review.
IGSB considers the information submitted. The existence or operation of a control is not inferred from an unsupported statement alone.
These submissions are handled in accordance with the IGSB Privacy Policy and the Legal & Governance Disclaimer.
IGSB uses a consistent written method to examine governance evidence. The method records evidence positions and material gaps without prescribing how the organisation must implement its controls.
Written Scope Confirmation
The system, function, decision context, review period and evidence boundaries are confirmed in writing.
Evidence Intake and Mapping
Submitted information is registered and mapped to the relevant evidence request or governance expectation.
Evidence Examination
Information is considered for relevance, traceability, sufficiency, reliability, currency and consistency.
Evidence Position Consolidation
Each applicable expectation is assigned one of the four approved evidence positions based on the submitted information.
Written Output
IGSB records the scope, evidence positions, material gaps and relevant qualifications in a controlled written output.
Evidence positions describe what could be demonstrated within the submitted information. They are not pass or fail grades.
No information was submitted against the relevant evidence expectation.
Information was considered, but it did not demonstrate the relevant evidence expectation.
Some relevant evidence was available, but the position remained incomplete, unclear or materially inconsistent.
The submitted information sufficiently demonstrated the relevant evidence expectation within the defined scope and review period.
These evidence positions are limited to the submitted information, defined scope and point in time. They do not constitute certification, assurance or confirmation of regulatory compliance.
For AI governance enquiries, evidence review is entered through a controlled written route. The appropriate stage is determined by scope, submitted information and evidence position.
Written Enquiry
Initial written contact and scope information.
Evidence Gap Map
Identification of material gaps between stated governance arrangements and available evidence.
Governance Evidence Passport
Structured record of submitted governance evidence and its assessed status.
G3 Readiness Snapshot
Defined review of evidence readiness against the relevant G-Series expectations.
Pre-Assessment Eligibility
Written determination of whether the organisation is ready to enter a controlled pre-assessment.
Route stages are determined by scope and evidence position. Progression is not automatic and does not constitute certification, assurance or confirmation of regulatory compliance.
Assessment records are retained in a manner proportionate to the engagement, the defined scope and applicable operational or legal requirements.
Information submitted to IGSB is handled in accordance with the applicable written engagement terms, the IGSB Privacy Policy, and the Legal & Governance Disclaimer.
Organisations remain responsible for lawful disclosure, appropriate redaction and any restriction placed on the use or quotation of submitted material.
An IGSB evidence review is limited to the submitted information, defined scope and point in time.
IGSB does not presently issue certification or accreditation.
Organisations considering an evidence review should begin by providing concise written scope information. IGSB will determine the appropriate route based on scope, submitted information and evidence position.
Submit a Written EnquiryView the AI Governance Evidence Route
Written correspondence only.
%20(2).png)