Innovation Week · Sponsor
GC26Groceryshop · Las VegasST26Shoptalk Fall · Nashville
Aevah
Build your continuity profile
OutcomesProfitable marginPromotion returnForecast confidenceWorking capitalCost & resilienceReliability & capacity
IndustriesConsumer products & CPGRetail & groceryIndustrial & manufacturingLife sciences & healthcareFinancial servicesLogistics & distribution
Why AevahBuyer pathsImplementation patternsEnterprise leadersFinance & FP&ACommercial & revenue growthPlanning & supply chain
PlatformOperational data scienceAevah in actionGoverned business contextBeyond the LLMAgent-Ready PlatformDeveloper SDK & APIsSovereign AIArchitecture & deployment
Security & Trust
For technical teamsDevelopersInsightsAbout Aevah
Build your continuity profile

Sovereign AI diligence center

Inspect the operating claim before accepting it.

This public planning brief shows how Aevah frames architecture, degraded behavior, interruption testing, and operating responsibility. Customer-specific designs and commitments are established through diligence and the applicable agreement.

Start with the architecture

Artifact 01

Conceptual reference architecture

The control plane evaluates each workload before it reaches a model or tool. The governed foundation remains present whether the permitted route is sovereign, frontier, analytical, or human.

Enterprise workflowsCustomer experiencePlanning and decisionsOperational execution
Aevah control plane

Policy determines the permitted route.

Criticality · Sensitivity · Capability · Availability · Economics · Authority

Customer controlledPrivate language modelsAnalytical and ML modelsGoverned tools and rules
Externally providedApproved frontier modelsSpecialized capabilityElastic peak capacity
Accountable authorityHuman confirmationException handlingRecovery approval
Governed contextIdentityPolicyPermitted toolsAction evidence
Conceptual pattern—not a customer-specific topology. Network boundaries, data flows, components, and responsibilities are confirmed during architecture review.

Artifact 02

Induced-interruption acceptance protocol

A continuity claim becomes credible when the buying committee can observe failure, degraded operation, recovery, and the evidence created throughout the event.

  1. 01

    Prepare

    Agree the workflow, normal route, permitted degraded behavior, recovery objective, capacity, and evidence requirements.

  2. 02

    Interrupt

    Induce loss of the approved external-model route under controlled conditions while the selected workflow is active.

  3. 03

    Observe

    Confirm permitted work continues, unsupported work is contained, authority remains active, and prohibited egress does not occur.

  4. 04

    Recover

    Restore the external route, reconcile activity, verify state, and return to normal routing under an approved procedure.

  5. 05

    Decide

    Use the retained evidence to accept, refine, or stop the proposed continuity scope.

Evidence packet

What the test should retain

  • Test scope and approved change record
  • Normal and degraded route decisions
  • Model and configuration versions
  • Source and tool availability
  • Identity and authorization decisions
  • Actions, exceptions, and human confirmations
  • Performance and capacity observations
  • Recovery and reconciliation record

Artifact 03

Illustrative workload-routing matrix

The goal is not to force all work onto one model. It is to make normal, escalation, and interruption behavior explicit before the workflow becomes operational.

Workload characteristicNormal baseFrontier roleDuring interruption
Approved retrieval, rules, scoring, and analytical modelsSovereign operating baseOptional escalation

Continue within approved data, tools, and thresholds

Planning or decision support requiring mixed capabilityPolicy-routed hybridUse for approved complex reasoning

Continue bounded analysis; escalate unsupported judgment

Specialized frontier reasoningFrontier primaryNormal route

Preserve minimum workflow; defer unavailable reasoning

Consequential actionPermitted model or toolOnly when approved

Maintain confirmation or route to an accountable person

Illustrative only. Final routing depends on workload tests, model compatibility and quality, data and tool availability, performance, capacity, policy, and customer approval.

Artifact 04

Operating-responsibility framework

“Customer-controlled” is incomplete unless ownership, service objectives, maintenance, recovery, and access are explicit.

Operating areaStarting positionWhat must be agreed
Capacity and infrastructureCustomer-specific

Location, ownership, redundancy, utilization, and expansion thresholds

Models and licensingShared decision

Supported models, quality thresholds, compatibility, terms, and replacement path

Identity, policy, and keysCustomer governed

Authority, secrets, access, egress, and human-confirmation boundaries

Data and tool synchronizationShared operating plan

Approved sources, freshness, state, tool availability, and recovery reconciliation

Monitoring and recoveryShared operating plan

Health, failover triggers, degraded mode, recovery, escalation, and retained evidence

Support and maintenanceCustomer-specific

Service objectives, maintenance windows, patching, approved access, and accountability

No implied service commitment

This framework does not establish availability, recovery, support, security, or performance commitments. Those become binding only through the applicable customer agreement.

Continue diligence

Apply these artifacts to one critical workload.

Build a preliminary continuity profile first, or take the framework directly into architecture and security review.

Build a continuity profile Review architecture Review Security & Trust