Know what the evidence can support.
Open independently examines controls, technology, suppliers, and AI governance. Leaders receive a clear view of what holds, what does not, and which decision the findings create.
The team that builds should not grade its own work.
When objectivity matters, Open separates assurance leadership, scope, evidence review, and reporting authority from implementation.
Independent work for decisions people must rely on.
Open defines the question, tests the relevant evidence, challenges the preferred story, and communicates the finding in language its intended users can act on.
Control assessments
Structured evaluation of design, implementation, and operating evidence against defined criteria or business expectations.
See control assessments →Audit readiness review
An independent view of scope, evidence quality, gaps, and open decisions before a formal external examination.
See audit readiness →Technical assurance
Focused review of architecture, configurations, processes, and technical claims where security confidence depends on deeper validation.
See technical assurance →Supplier assurance
Risk-informed evaluation of critical service providers and the evidence behind their security and resilience commitments.
See supplier assurance →AI governance assessment
Independent review of governance, risk, lifecycle controls, and supporting evidence for responsible AI programs.
See AI governance assurance →Stakeholder reporting
Clear findings, management insight, and decision-ready communication tailored to the parties who need to rely on the work.
See stakeholder reporting →The evidence leads. The conclusion follows.
The question, criteria, procedures, findings, and limitations remain visible from scope to reporting.
Define the claim
We begin with the exact question stakeholders need the engagement to answer.
Protect independence
Roles and boundaries are explicit wherever objectivity is central to the value of the work.
Follow the evidence
Conclusions reflect what can be supported, not what is easiest to present.
Make findings actionable
Reporting shows what matters, why it matters, and what decision it should inform.
From question to conclusion, with the evidence visible.
Each engagement is scoped around the intended user, the criteria they care about, and the decision the result must support.
Frame
Define the decision, intended users, expectations, dependencies, and evidence needed.
Examine
Test the relevant design, implementation, operation, and supporting evidence.
Communicate
Explain the result, limitations, findings, and implications in decision-ready language.
Choose the examination the decision requires.
Start with who will use the result, what they need to decide, and which formal role may be required.
What kind of assurance work do we need?
It depends on who will use the result and what they need to decide. We clarify the question, evidence, and any formal reporting requirement first.
Does Open Assurance issue certifications or regulated attestations?
No. Open Assurance does not currently issue certifications or regulated attestations. When a decision requires a licensed or accredited issuer, we define that role in scope from the start and prepare the work for the qualified party.
How do you protect independence from implementation work?
Whenever independence is required, delivery and review teams, evidence ownership, and reporting authority stay separate.
Can you use evidence already collected in our tools?
Yes, when it is current, reliable, and relevant to the question. We test its quality before relying on it.
What happens when the work identifies exceptions?
We explain the exception, why it matters, and the decision it creates. Your team owns remediation, and Open can verify the corrective action when appropriate.
