Capgemini Invent AI Design Authority
Lifecycle review gates

Five checkpoints from idea to operation.

Each gate is a short, structured review with clear entry and exit criteria. Pass the gate for your risk class and you carry evidence, not doubt, into the next phase. The gates are proportionate — a Risk Class 3 product moves through a lighter version of the same path. They align to the Group Cyber Approval Process and the ASLM asset lifecycle, so a single set of evidence serves both.

The path

One lifecycle. Five gates.

Gates map to the natural decision points of an AI build — and to the five steps of the Group Cyber Approval Process. You do not stop work to pass them; you bring the work you have already done.

Every gate ends in one of three decisions — the Group Cyber Approval vocabulary. Approved proceed · Approved with conditions proceed while named actions close · Not approved a material standard is unmet — resolve or raise an exception. Conditional approvals record the condition, an accountable owner, a due date, and a re-review trigger.

Gate 0

Discovery & Scoping

At opportunity / discovery · Cyber Step I
Entry — bring this
  • A documented business purpose, intended use, and ROI justification
  • Model and technology selection from the Group-approved list, with rationale
  • Data identification and classification against the Capgemini scheme
Exit — you leave with
  • A confirmed risk class (1–3) and EU AI Act classification
  • An agreed review plan and named reviewer for the build
  • Early flags on regulatory, IP, or Responsible AI exposure
Gate 1

Design & Definition

Before significant build · Cyber Step II
Entry — bring this
  • Solution architecture mapped to the Gen AI Risk Reference Architecture
  • Completed AI solution risk assessment questionnaire (CIA needs)
  • Resource documentation: data, tooling, and system resources
  • Draft roles & responsibilities, incident response, and continuity plan
Exit — decision on
  • Architecture is fit, secure, and evaluable against the 16 risks
  • Responsible AI risks are understood and owned
  • The UX approach is sound for the risk of being wrong
  • Evaluation approach and success thresholds agreed
Gate 2

Build & Data Readiness

Mid-build, before scale-up · Cyber Step III
Entry — bring this
  • Working evaluation harness with a baseline result
  • Bias and fairness testing against agreed thresholds
  • Data provenance and masking; live/sensitive data cleared by DPO & CISO
  • Grounding (RAG), guardrails, and degraded-mode behaviour in place
Exit — decision on
  • Model meets the quality and safety bar it was set
  • Failure modes are known, bounded, and handled
  • Cost and latency are within an agreed budget
  • Clear to invest in productionising
Gate 3

Security & Verification

Before go-live · Cyber Steps IV–V
Entry — bring this
  • Evidence against all mandatory standards for the risk class
  • Red-team activity and vulnerability assessment completed
  • SAST, SCA, secret and IaC scanning clean in CI
  • Usability validation with representative users
  • Monitoring, alerting, incident response, and continuity plan
  • Documentation, model card, and named owner
Exit — decision on
  • The product is safe, sound, usable, and supportable
  • CISO sign-off; independent Responsible AI sign-off (Risk Class 1)
  • Decision: Approved, Approved with conditions, or Not approved
  • Residual risks logged; open items carry an exception with owner and date
Gate 4

Deployment & Service

30–90 days after launch, then periodic · Security in service
Entry — bring this
  • Production quality, drift, cost, and incident metrics
  • Threat and compliance monitoring; alerting tested with the SOC
  • User feedback and any fairness signals from real use
  • Status of conditions or exceptions carried from Gate 3
Exit — decision on
  • The product behaves as designed under real load
  • Open conditions and exceptions are closed or renewed
  • Re-classify or re-review triggered by material change
  • Lessons captured back into the standards
Proportionate

How the gates scale by risk class.

Same path, different weight. The risk class is set at Gate 0 and drives how much review each gate carries.

Risk ClassGate 0–2Gate 3Gate 4
Risk Class 3 · Foundational
Internal / low stakes		Self-certify against a checklist; async reviewLight review with one reviewerMetrics submitted; review by exception
Risk Class 2 · Elevated
Client-facing, contained		Live gate reviews with the AuthorityFull sign-off; Responsible AI assessmentScheduled operate review at 30–90 days
Risk Class 1 · Critical
High-stakes / regulated		Named reviewer across all gatesIndependent Responsible AI & security sign-offPeriodic review; re-classify on any material change
One gate, three frameworks

How our gates map to Group processes.

The Authority's gates are a single front end to the Group Cyber Approval Process and the ASLM asset lifecycle. Pass a gate once; satisfy all three.

AI Design Authority gateCyber Approval ProcessASLM lifecycle
Gate 0 · Discovery & ScopingStep I — Discovery & ScopingInitialize → Ready to Plan
Gate 1 · Design & DefinitionStep II — DesignPlan & Design
Gate 2 · Build & Data ReadinessStep III — Development / IntegrationIncubation → Ready to Industrialize
Gate 3 · Security & VerificationSteps IV–V — Test/QA & Deployment (CISO decision)Industrialization → Ready to Run
Gate 4 · Deployment & ServiceStep V — Security in serviceRun (→ Ready to Retire)

Investments over €1M also dock with the Group Investment Committee (GIC) per ASLM guidelines.

Ready for a gate — or not sure you are?

Book the review, or bring a work-in-progress to office hours first. Both start in the same place.

Book a gate review Check the standards