AIGMS™ Verification Programme
Founding Verification Cohort Rules
These public rules explain the boundary for initial applications and any later cohort activity that receives separate written authority. They do not adopt the controlled Scheme Rules for public verification and they do not open evidence receipt, paid work, assessment or status.
Rule area 1
Purpose and authority
1.1 Programme purpose
The cohort tests a controlled method for examining whether a named business has operated AIGMS™ within an agreed scope and whether sampled evidence meets the applicable Verification Requirements.
1.2 Separate from implementation
An organisation may implement and operate AIGMS™ without joining the cohort. Package purchase, course achievement and implementation support remain separate from assessment.
1.3 Cohort outcome
A cohort participant may receive a Pilot Assessment Report. Participation does not grant AIGMS™ Verified status, a Status ID or permission to use an AIGMS™ Verified Mark.
Rule area 2
Applicant and scope
2.1 Eligible applicant
One application must relate to one legally identifiable UK business. The applicant must appoint a representative who has authority to provide the application information and agree the proposed scope.
2.2 Coherent scope
The proposed scope must identify the legal entity, functions, services, locations and AI Activities to be examined. A partial scope must be operationally coherent and must not conceal a connected Significant or Critical AI Activity.
2.3 Minimum readiness
The scope must contain at least one Active AI Activity, current governance records, role-appropriate competence evidence, a Governance Evidence Pack and at least one completed Assurance Review.
2.4 Operating period
The applicant must have at least 90 consecutive calendar days of genuine operating evidence. Retrospective explanations may clarify a record while they cannot replace evidence created during operation.
Rule area 3
Independence and competence
3.1 Appointment before assessment
No detailed assessment may begin until the Programme has appointed personnel with documented competence for their assigned work and completed a recorded conflict check.
3.2 Implementation separation
A person or associated delivery business must not assess organisation-specific AIGMS™ arrangements that they designed, implemented, maintained or advised on during the previous 24 months.
3.3 Assessment and decision separation
An assessor gathers and evaluates evidence. A different authorised decision maker must make any future status decision from the completed case record.
3.4 No commercial influence
Sales, package ownership, referral arrangements, fees and commercial relationships must not alter the evidence requested, the findings recorded or a future status decision.
Rule area 4
Evidence and assessment
The assessment examines system-wide records and a proportionate sample of AI Activities. Sampling does not imply that every record, output or event has been examined.
Minimum system-wide evidence
- Current AI Governance Policy signed and dated
- Complete Activity Register for the agreed scope
- Current Consequence Profiles for in-scope AI Activities
- Safeguard selection records with documented reasons
- Training and competence records
- Governance Evidence Pack and index
- Assurance Review records and improvement actions
- Incident, complaint and near-miss records
- Shadow AI discovery records
- Transparency, human review, change and dependency evidence where applicable
Evidence quality
Material evidence must be current, dated, attributable, relevant and traceable. The assessor may accept redacted or equivalent evidence when it still demonstrates the requirement. Missing access may result in an Evidence Gap.
Rule area 5
Finding language
| Finding | Meaning | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmed Evidence | Sufficient evidence demonstrates that the applicable Verification Requirement is met for the sample and period examined. | Supports a positive assessment conclusion. |
| Improvement Note | The requirement is met while a practical opportunity to strengthen the arrangement remains. | Does not block the current assessment conclusion. |
| Evidence Gap | Evidence is incomplete, unclear or unavailable. | Must be resolved before the affected conclusion can proceed. |
| Unmet Verification Requirement | Evidence demonstrates that a mandatory requirement has not been met. | Prevents a favourable conclusion until suitable remedial evidence is confirmed. |
| Integrity Concern | Evidence may have been falsified, withheld or materially misrepresented. | Requires escalation and may end the assessment. |
Rule area 6
Evidence security and privacy
Evidence access will begin only after the Programme has agreed the purpose, scope, people, access controls, retention position and secure route in writing with the applicant.
6.1 Confidentiality
Applicant evidence must be treated as confidential whether or not it carries a confidentiality label. Access must be limited to people who need the information for an authorised programme task.
6.2 Data minimisation
The Programme must request only the information needed to examine the agreed scope. Applicants should remove unnecessary personal information and may propose controlled viewing or redaction where appropriate.
6.3 AI tool restriction
No AI tool may process applicant evidence unless the environment, purpose, access, retention and deletion arrangements have been approved in writing. Applicant evidence must not be used for provider model training, unrelated product development or marketing.
6.4 Security concern
The Programme must restrict access, protect the evidence, record the event and notify the applicant promptly when loss, unauthorised access or inappropriate disclosure may have affected its material.
Rule area 7
Fees, communications and applicant conduct
7.1 Initial application
No fee applies to the website application. It is separate from the priced Entry Check and creates no promise of acceptance, assessment, public status or a favourable result.
7.2 Written agreement first
No evidence access, paid work or assessment activity may begin without a written proposal and participation agreement stating the scope, work, timetable, responsibilities, confidentiality arrangements, fees and cancellation position.
7.3 Accurate information
The applicant must provide complete and accurate information, preserve genuine operating records and disclose material incidents, complaints, investigations, changes, evidence limitations and relevant implementation relationships.
7.4 Public communications
An applicant may state that it has applied to or is participating in the Founding Verification Cohort when that statement is factually correct. It must not describe itself as AIGMS™ Verified, approved, certified, accredited, endorsed or guaranteed to receive status.
Rule area 8
Questions, complaints and appeals
8.1 Evidence Question
An applicant may ask what a Verification Requirement seeks or how a requested record relates to the scope. The reply may clarify the evidence request while it must not design the applicant's remedial work.
8.2 Initial application complaint
An applicant may raise a concern about conduct, service, delay, confidentiality, programme operation or a misleading public claim. No complaint fee applies. Do not include governance evidence or sensitive information in the first message.
8.3 Safeguards before paid work
No priced Entry Check or assessment will begin until the written participant terms identify the complaint route, response periods and a competent reviewer with no direct involvement in the matter.
8.4 Appeal arrangements
There is currently no assessment finding or status decision to appeal. Appeal rules, submission periods and independent reviewer arrangements will be published and included in the written participant terms before assessment begins.
8.5 Submission route
Use the website contact route and state Verification application concern in the first line. The Programme will provide a controlled route if supporting material becomes necessary.
Rule area 9
Public status boundary
9.1 No current status
No public AIGMS™ Verified status will be granted through the founding cohort. The public register remains the authoritative source and currently contains no Current status entries.
9.2 Future decision gate
A future status route may open only after the Programme has tested the cohort method, appointed independent personnel, established secure evidence handling, approved the public sampling method, completed specialist reviews and recorded a formal launch decision.
9.3 Meaning of future status
AIGMS™ Verified will be a private verification status for a named legal entity and recorded scope. It will not be UKAS accredited, government approved or regulator endorsed. It will not confirm legal compliance or the safety, accuracy or performance of an AI tool, product, AI Activity or output.
Start an initial application or check the public status register.