Structured challenge activities
Create reviews with a defined scope, questions and status so the reasoning does not disappear into email or meeting notes.
Human authority. Agentic speed.
Seamlessly embed credible challenge
into every workflow.
Turn independent challenge into better-informed outcomes. Credible Challenge is the connected workspace engineered for AI oversight, reduced risk, and seamless compliance. Today, automated agents and manual reviews are rewriting how teams operate. We keep human judgment and accountability firmly at the core. Structure reviews, question assumptions, and drive evidence into decisive action.
Human decision remains explicitChallenge is documented
Illustrative workflowHuman-led
AI agents
Proposal
Evidence
Credible Challenge
Human reviewQuestion · verify
Return for evidenceNo auto-approval
Human decisionApprove
or pauseAccountable reviewer
or pauseAccountable reviewer
- 01 AI proposal
- 02 Credible Challenge
- 03 Human decision
A connected challenge cycle
From connected inputs
to accountable outcomes.
Connect source inputs to independent, evidence-led challenge across governance, risk and controls (GRC), compliance, technology and AI oversight. People remain accountable as questions lead to actions, further review and a documented outcome.
- 01
Connect
Source material
- 02
Challenge
Human review checkpoint
Standardised · AI-assisted questions - 03
Act & revisit
Action with evidence request
Unresolved work returns - 04
Outcome
Human decision recorded
Rationale · conditions
Evidence requested · return to independent challenge
Designed for connected workflows, including Appian-based processes. Source ingestion, AI assistance and external send-backs require scoped integrations; connectors are not included.
Explore the Insight HubInside the workspace
The tools behind
the challenge.
For financial services risk, compliance, technology and oversight teams, Credible Challenge is more than a decision checkpoint. Structure reviews, keep evidence close and follow issues through to a documented outcome.
Ideas and practical guidance in the Insight HubProgram-aligned questionnaires
Use reusable questions to bring consistency to reviews across different risk and compliance programs.
Actions and observations
Record issues that need follow-through, assign ownership and keep progress visible after the initial challenge.
Evidence in context
Keep supporting documents and materials alongside the challenge they inform, rather than separating proof from the decision.
Role-based participation
Bring challengers, reviewers, managers and administrators into the process with appropriate access and responsibilities.
Dashboards and reporting
See challenge activity, open work and progress across the program so oversight can focus on what needs attention.
A connected review discipline
From coverage planning to fieldwork.
01 / Coverage plan · universe
Frame the programs, processes and risks your team intends to review, using program organisation to give the coverage plan a clear context.
Program-aligned questionnaires · Dashboards and reporting02 / Scope
Define each challenge activity’s objectives, boundaries and questions, supported by structured reviews and program-aligned questionnaires.
Structured challenge activities · Program-aligned questionnaires03 / Execution · fieldwork facilitation
Work through questions, gather evidence and record observations with clear participant roles. Track follow-up actions and report progress through the existing workspace tools.
Role-based participation · Evidence in context · Actions and observations · Dashboards and reportingManual to agentic-enabled
One discipline of review,
whatever starts the work.
The same questions matter whether a person raises an issue or an AI system proposes a next step: what is the evidence, who can challenge it, and who is accountable for the decision?
People-led programs
Start a challenge activity, work through program questions, gather evidence and track observations and actions. Reviewers and managers can see the work and its progress in one place.
Agentic-enabled decisions
Apply that review pattern to AI-generated recommendations and proposed actions, with a person able to question the basis and document the outcome. Connecting an external agent or workflow platform requires a scoped integration.
One challenge pattern. Many contexts.
Across risk and
compliance programs.
Use credible challenge in the programs your teams already run, from issue remediation and product reviews to assurance and regulatory work. Begin with manual review, then design governed handoffs as workflows become agentic-enabled.
01Issue remediation02New products03Third-party due diligence04Complaints05Regulations management06AI use cases07New technology initiatives08Regulatory reporting09Independent testing10Control design11Operational effectiveness
EU AI ACT / CONTEXT
A useful distinction
High-risk AI: conformity assessment and testing.
Under the EU AI Act’s high-risk framework, requirements cover risk management, data governance, documentation and logging, transparency, human oversight, accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity.
Providers must demonstrate compliance through the applicable conformity assessment before placing a system on the market or putting it into service. Testing and supporting evidence form part of that work; notified-body involvement depends on the system and assessment route.
Credible Challenge helps organise review questions, evidence and follow-up actions. It does not perform technical conformity testing, certify systems or guarantee compliance.
Keep the decision human
Put credible challenge
into the workflow.
Explore a guided trial for your financial services team’s GRC, risk, compliance or AI governance reviews.
THE INSIGHT HUB
Ideas for the decisions that deserve a closer look.
Perspectives on credible challenge, governance and emerging practice for financial services teams.
Explore insights