Advisory
The judgment review.
A book can name a risk. It cannot tell you where yours sits. The judgment review is the engagement behind the methodology: the same instruments the book publishes, run against your own processes, by the two people who built them.
It is deliberately not an audit. Nothing here produces a compliance certificate, because no regime requires one yet. What it produces is the thing a board actually needs before the regime arrives — a named owner, a number with a direction, a threshold agreed in advance, and a record that would survive an examiner.
Start the conversation
Tell us which decisions matter most in your institution, and we will say whether there is a review worth running.
Who it is for
The right institution for this.
One that means to get the full value of the technology and to have its people worth more at the end of it than they were at the start. Holding those two together is the work, and it is a board-level question long before it is a training question.
Three questions come up wherever this is taken seriously: how experts can experiment in front of each other without anyone being cast as the remedial case; how risk is held at both levels — risk in the work, and risk to the capacity that catches it; and how any of it is measured. The review answers those three in your own institution’s terms.
Building on its people rather than around them — treating capability as what the technology should raise, not the cost it should remove.
Asking what the machine is forming in the people who use it, not only what it produces.
Wanting its experts to experiment in the open, and wanting that to feel safe rather than exposing.
Taking the fear seriously — people can tell when a tool is aimed at their work, and saying nothing about it is its own answer.
Prepared to hear the answer as a number with a direction and a named owner.
Interested in how judgment is built, kept and rebuilt — in learning, and in learning to learn.
How it runs
Three movements.
Scope, duration and fee are set per institution.
01Where the judgment lives
We work through the processes that carry your most consequential decisions and mark them, step by step, into the steps that form judgment and the steps that merely consume time. Most institutions have never had this map drawn, and it is the artefact everything else hangs on.
02What the instruments say
Override and challenge rates where they exist, the intake and throughput of the pathway that produces your seniors, the share of the machine's output nobody looks at, and a cold-read test with the tools off. Where a signal is not collected, that is itself the finding.
03What the board reads
A drafted register: two owned lines, entries positioned on the tiers, each with a threshold set in advance and a stated condition for coming back off. A rung on the ladder with the self-score behind it. And a board paper short enough to be read before the meeting rather than during it.
Who does what
Two people, two vantage points.
Oksana holds the board’s side: whether the register is one a committee will accept, whether the owner named can answer for it, and whether the paper survives the meeting. She has sat in the chair that receives it.
Alex holds the instrument side: the process mapping, the signals, the cold-read design and the scoring. Where an institution wants the measurement running continuously rather than once, that is a separate decision, and it can be met with tooling — including, disclosed plainly, the one he built.
Prefer to read first? The framework sets out every instrument this engagement uses, and the book prints the methods.