Configure your organisation's risk profile in seven steps. The result is a machine-readable governance document that shapes every pre-check the platform runs on your behalf. All data stays in your browser — nothing is transmitted.
1
Identity
2
Legal
3
Risk Appetite
4
Ethics
5
Red Lines
6
Statutes
7
Review
Step 1 of 7
Client Identity
Establish the legal and organisational context for this governance profile. The jurisdiction and organisation type determine which statutory frameworks are activated and which expenditure thresholds apply to every recommendation.
Legal Thresholds
Define the conditions that require mandatory legal review before any recommendation can be acted on. These thresholds become hard triggers in the governance pre-check — any output that approaches or crosses them will be held for adviser sign-off.
Be specific. This description is used by the governance engine to contextualise FLAG annotations.
The disclosure or cap threshold applicable to this client under the relevant Electoral Act. Recommendations approaching this figure will trigger CAUTION status.
If provided, this contact will receive automated notification when an output is assigned FLAG or BLOCK status.
Risk Appetite
Set your organisation's tolerance for risk across four independent governance domains. Each domain is assessed separately — a high political risk tolerance does not affect the legal risk threshold. Move each slider to the position that reflects your actual operating posture, not an aspirational standard.
🔴 Reputational risk
Low
LowMediumHigh
Low tolerance: The organisation prioritises its public reputation above operational speed. Any recommendation with a plausible reputational downside triggers automatic review.
⚖️ Legal risk
Low
LowMediumHigh
Low tolerance: All outputs with any detectable legal exposure are flagged for review before action. Legal caution takes precedence over political timing.
💰 Financial risk
Medium
LowMediumHigh
Medium tolerance: Recommendations with moderate financial exposure proceed with annotation. Only significant compliance exposure (approaching cap thresholds or disclosure obligations) triggers formal review.
🏛️ Political risk
Medium
LowMediumHigh
Medium tolerance: Recommendations with moderate coalition or base management risk proceed with governance annotation. High-exposure recommendations involving principal credibility or coalition stability trigger review.
Ethical Constraints
Ethical constraints are operational principles that inform the governance engine's scoring without automatically blocking outputs. They represent the organisation's values and conduct standards — recommendations that conflict with these constraints receive a governance annotation and may be downweighted, but they are not automatically blocked. Enter one constraint per line.
These will be encoded into the governance profile and evaluated against every recommendation. Vague constraints are less actionable — be specific about what conduct they prohibit or require.
Hard Red Lines
Hard red lines are absolute prohibitions. Any recommendation that touches a configured red line receives automatic BLOCK status — it is not delivered, it is logged, and it triggers an alert. These are not risk tolerance settings; they are non-negotiable constraints that the platform will never circumvent regardless of strategic context. Enter one red line per line.
Be precise. A red line like "never break the law" is not actionable. A red line like "never recommend electoral expenditure that would trigger a disclosure obligation without prior legal sign-off" is enforceable by the pre-check engine.
Statute References
Select the Australian statutes that apply to this client's operations. Only activated statutes are evaluated in the governance pre-check — enabling only the relevant frameworks avoids false positives and keeps governance annotations actionable. You can also add additional references not listed below.
Separate multiple references with a semicolon.
Review & Export
Your governance profile is complete. Review the configuration below, then download the machine-readable JSON document that encodes these settings. This file is the authoritative governance configuration for this organisation and can be re-imported at any time.
Governance Profile JSON
Generating…
Profile complete
This governance profile will be applied to every recommendation generated for this client. To update the configuration, re-run this onboarding flow and import the new JSON into the platform. All changes are version-stamped with the generation timestamp in the profile document.
Governance Refinement Service
What governance refinement produces
After reviewing your completed governance profile, the platform can generate a structured governance refinement report — an independent assessment of your configuration that identifies potential gaps, internal inconsistencies, and calibration issues before any recommendations are run.
The refinement report includes:
Gap analysis — statutory frameworks that are likely relevant to your organisation type and jurisdiction but are not currently activated.
Threshold review — risk appetite settings that appear inconsistent with the mandatory legal review triggers you have configured (e.g. high legal risk tolerance combined with extensive trigger activation).
Red line quality assessment — an evaluation of whether your configured red lines are specific enough to be enforced by the pre-check engine, with suggested rewrites where they are too vague.
Jurisdiction-specific obligations — obligations under your selected jurisdiction that are not currently reflected in your legal trigger configuration.
Ethical constraint coherence — an assessment of whether your ethical constraints and red lines are mutually consistent, and whether any constraints should be elevated to red lines given the organisation type.
Governance refinement is available for all clients. To request a refinement report, export your governance profile JSON and submit it through the platform's strategy intake form with the subject line "Governance refinement — [organisation name]".