What we do next.

This is the master internal decision page (v1.1). The left nav is the evidence — the standard, the engine, the team, the decks, the dashboards. Status (2026-06-20): the priority is to stand up the company first — the entity, the team, and the investor raise — before we formally bring this to Solutions. Mark & Wade get the Kelly Leadership pitch (how we promote them under this); the entity / investor / licensing strategy stays internal and is not shared with them. Client conversations (BCBS, Grace Hill) remain held.

The Solutions intake process (new — SVP directive)

The SVP of Sales formalized how new solution ideas move forward. The point isn't bureaucracy — it's alignment before significant effort, leveraging existing capabilities, and building things Delivery and Ops can actually support. The seven steps:

1. An opportunity is identified — a client need, business challenge, or market opportunity.
2. The originating team contacts Solutions (Mark or Wade) early to discuss it.  ◆ govrn.ai is here
3. Solutions evaluates, and if it warrants investment, develops the concept and preps it for broader review.
4. Solutions, Delivery, and Operations review the concept and determine the best path forward.
5. If approved, Solutions works with the necessary teams to finalize and document the solution.
6. The solution is piloted or launched.
7. Sales can market and sell the solution.

Where govrn.ai sits: Step 2 — bringing the developed concept to Solutions. The concept work that normally happens at Step 3 is largely already done (standard, method, decks, dashboards, public framing) — that's all on the table for Solutions to keep, change, or shelve, and the go/no-go is theirs. The directive explicitly rewards leveraging existing capabilities; building the execution layer with Aperture is exactly that, which should strengthen the concept at the Step-4 review.

Honest note on timing: real effort is already visible, and an intro note describing the offering went to BCBS IL with a warm thread at Grace Hill. Nothing is sold and no engagement is signed. The clean move is to put that momentum under the gate — disclose everything, hold further client advancement until Solutions weighs in, and let Solutions own the decision. That's the behavior the process is designed to produce.

Team & current ownership

Who owns what in the current phase:

The early-engagement note — to Mark & Wade

The #1 action: bring govrn.ai to Solutions, full scope, and hand them the decision. Draft below — humble, complete, decision-ceding. Review and send when ready (HITL).

What we pitch — the governance + Aperture story

The complete end-to-end offering:

• govrn — the independent standard for AI-governance attestation, across every cloud, model, and agent, no matter who built them. See, Prove, Run.
• Phase 1: Governance baseline. ~3–4 weeks, fixed scope. Posture, AI bill-of-materials, gap report, cost/efficiency, roadmap, independent attestation.
• Phase 2–3: Run with Aperture. Aperture implements the governance — it's the execution layer we build together. govrn defines the standard; Aperture operationalizes it.
• Evidence layer (Nexthink, Microsoft Agent 365 + Purview). Optional: these platforms provide usage telemetry and guardrails — sensors and data sources, not attestors. govrn consumes their telemetry as evidence and adds the independent attestation on top.
• The wedge — governance is the low-friction door; the evidence it collects hands us Phase 2+ and the whole account.

Nexthink decision (Friday 2026-06-12 demo)

Verdict: Good potential partner, not a total solution. Attendees: Barry, Wade, Sean, Amit, Ridge, Mike. Nexthink is a monitoring/usage-guardrail platform ($3B, Gartner DEX leader, Vista AI-bet) — it captures AI telemetry and enforces usage policies. It does not assess governance, attest to posture, or define policy. Our play: Nexthink is the sensor; govrn + Aperture are the standard + the execution. We're building everything end-to-end with Aperture. Nexthink could be a monitoring attach (Phase 2+) but it's not on the critical path for Phase 1.

Client threads — held pending Solutions

BCBS of Illinois: Bill Madden sent an intro note that describes the offering (fixed-scope governance baseline) and offers a 20-minute conversation. To be precise: nothing is sold, no engagement is signed, no price is committed — it's an introduction. Grace Hill: a warm thread with their CTO (Chris Fontan), no proposal sent. Per the new intake process, both are held — no further client advancement until Solutions gives direction. For full transparency, here's the exact BCBS note that went out:

Next steps

1. Brief Mark & Wade (Solutions), full scope — send the note above, get the 30 minutes, hand them the go/no-go. This is the gate; everything else waits behind it.
2. Hold client advancement. No new BCBS / Grace Hill commitments until Solutions directs. If BCBS replies to Bill's note, acknowledge warmly and hold scheduling until Solutions weighs in.
3. Solutions → Delivery → Ops review (step 4). Build on the Friday 2026-06-12 alignment; let Solutions own taking it in.
4. On approval: document, then pilot. The Grace Hill fixed-fee baseline is the natural first pilot once the gate clears it.
5. Casey completes pitch review — feeds the Solutions concept, not a parallel track.
6. Formalize Nexthink positioning (sensor + govrn governance layer) for future accounts; not blocking.

Review these to sign off

Canonical links to share

The full walkthrough is still on the left — the evidence behind every sign-off.