Search Precision Consulting
Type to search · ↑↓ to navigate · Enter to open · Esc to close
Independence and
Conflict Rules
We draw ethical boundaries where there could be an implied or direct conflict.
Our engineers build and run AI for clients, and our reviewers independently review AI programmes and systems. These rules keep the two apart. They extend the rule we already apply to Gateway work: a practitioner who has helped prepare a programme does not sit on its review, and we take no readiness or recovery work on a programme one of our practitioners has reviewed.
One role per system
Every piece of work sits in a lane
Every piece of AI work we take on sits in a lane, and the lane decides what may follow it on the same system. We either review a system, or we help build, fix or run it.
Advisory work can lead to either, so we say at scoping which way it could go.
Independent lane
We act as reviewer, with nothing to gain from the answer.
Delivery lane
We act as builder, fixer or operator, and we say so from the start.
Advisory, in either lane
We act as adviser, and we declare any interest in building when the work is scoped.
Every AI offer is described at AI and Automation at Precision Consulting.
Definitions
The words the rules use
- System
- An AI system, its successor versions, and the business function it performs.
- Programme
- The programme or project whose AI system, business case or delivery is in scope.
- Independent review
- Any engagement in the independent lane.
- When a review ends
- A review ends on the day the final report is delivered.
The rules
The fourteen rules
What we review, and what we do after a review
-
One role per system
We do not give independent review or assurance of an AI system that we designed, built, recovered or operate, that people we supplied to the client (employees, contractors or placements) helped design or build, or that a Precision practitioner helped prepare.
-
Review, then no delivery and no replacement
When we have independently reviewed a programme or AI system, we take no readiness, recovery, build or operating work on it, on any system that replaces or substantially re-scopes it, or on any system that competes with it for the same purpose for the same client, for 24 months after the review ends. There is no waiver.
-
Choose at scoping
Every diagnostic states at scoping whether it could lead to our delivery work. One that could is never presented as independent, and its findings are written to stand without us. Help to write or strengthen a business case is sold as Business Case Development under this rule and is never called a review.
-
The standard we review against
We review against the client's adopted standard or a public framework (the Guidance for AI Adoption, the Commonwealth policy for the responsible use of AI in government and its technical standard, the NSW AI Assessment Framework, ISO/IEC 42001 and APRA's April 2026 letter). We use a standard of our own only where the client has adopted it, and the scope says so. We give no independent opinion on a governance framework we wrote or on the effectiveness of a governance process we operate for the client, and we do not perform the internal audit of an AI management system we designed.
How we keep reviews clean
-
People we placed or supplied
We give no independent review of a system inside the remit of a Precision fractional or interim leader, or whose accountable owner or lead engineer we placed or supplied in the past 24 months. Where we review or recover a programme staffed partly by people we placed or contract, the scope says so.
-
People we supply into client roles
A person we supply to a client in a leadership, assurance, audit, risk, procurement or evaluation role takes no part in selecting, evaluating or accepting our work or our candidates.
-
Supplier information
When we test a system another supplier built, we protect that supplier's confidential information, and the engineers who tested it do not build a system that replaces, competes with or integrates with it for the same client for 12 months.
-
Reviewer independence in practice
Every independent review scope names the review lead and the engineers used, and excludes any engineer who has worked on a competing build for that client. It states that we build AI for other clients and may compete with the supplier whose system is under review, and that rules 2 and 7 apply. It states the fees we earned from the client in the prior 24 months, and we decline the review where our delivery fees from that client exceed a threshold we set. The review lead signs the findings, and neither the firm's owner nor a delivery lead edits them. A second reviewer who took no part in scoping reads every adverse finding about a system another supplier built. Reviewers' pay and targets do not depend on delivery sales to clients they review.
-
Confidentiality
We use what a reviewer learns on a review only for that review, and disclose it only to the client or where the law or a regulator requires it.
-
Gateway appointments
No practitioner uses a Gateway appointment, or anything learned on one, to identify, approach or scope work for Precision.
Money and relationships
-
No vendor money
We take no commission, rebate, referral fee or funding from any vendor, platform or partner whose product or service we recommend, assess or review, and we hold no reciprocal referral arrangement with any party whose platform or services we may recommend in an advisory engagement. Any referral relationship we do hold is named on this page and involves no payment or volume commitment.
-
No software resale, no quotas, usage at cost
- We resell no software.
- We hold no alliance quotas.
- We charge third-party AI usage at the provider's cost, shown on each invoice.
Transactions and government
-
One side per asset
In a transaction we act for the buyer or the seller of an asset, never both. Buy-side AI diligence we describe as independent carries a 12 month bar on building or value creation work on that company's AI systems; where the sponsor wants that option, rule 3 applies and the diligence is never described as independent.
-
Government probity
Where our work defines requirements for a later procurement, we declare our interest in that later work and accept any probity measure the agency sets, including exclusion from it. Where an agency relies on the independent advice or assurance ground to engage an external provider, we offer only independent lane work.
In practice
How we run the rules
-
One conflict register across the firm
The register covers our consulting, recruitment and contractor engagements, because rules 5 and 6 turn on placements and contractor supply, which those parts of the firm make every day. We check it at every scoping, before every proposal, and before any placement or contractor engagement with a client of our AI work. Practitioners declare, without programme detail, each agency where they sat on a Gateway or assurance review in the past three years, and that agency's AI programmes are screened before any approach or scope.
-
An owner who can stop a proposal
The register is owned by someone other than the firm's owner and separate from the people who sell and deliver the work, and that person can stop any proposal.
-
Your entries, on request
You can ask to see every register entry that concerns you.
-
Separate leads on one account
Where we do independent work and delivery work for the same client, each has its own lead.
-
When a rule is breached
We stop the conflicting role on that system, tell the client, record the breach in the register, and review the scoping check that missed it.
Review or recovery
Which door?
Review and recovery are two doors, and you choose between them at the start.
Choose an Independent AI Review if your board, a regulator or an audit committee needs a finding from a reviewer with nothing to gain from it. We cannot win the fix: after the review we do not build, fix or run the system, or a system that replaces it, for 24 months. If a fix is needed, we hand you a transition pack (the evidence, the recovery objectives in order, and the testing harness where we built one) so any firm can start in days.
Independent AI ReviewChoose the Stop, Fix or Scale Review if you want a decision and a path and do not need independence. We say at the start that we would like to lead the fix, and we never describe this review as independent.
Stop, Fix or Scale ReviewA change we made
Until 30 September 2026 this site said we had no implementation arm. Our engineers now build and run AI for clients, so on 30 September 2026 we changed that statement on every page where it appeared and published these rules.
Government reviews
Gateway reviews
Our practitioners include accredited Gateway reviewers. Reviewer conduct rules bar private sector reviewers from using the process to solicit business, and we hold our practitioners to that standard everywhere. Under rule 10, no practitioner uses a Gateway appointment, or anything learned on one, to identify, approach or scope work for Precision. A practitioner who has helped prepare a programme does not sit on its review, we take no readiness or recovery work on a programme one of our practitioners has reviewed, and what a reviewer learns on a review stays there.
Related