AI red-team & functional safety · Functional-Safety AI Architecture Review

Review how the AI stays inside a safe envelope when the model is wrong.

Integro reviews runtime bounds, independent-monitor architecture, degraded modes, hazard controls, and evidence posture, mapping readiness toward IEC 61508, ISO/IEC TR 5469, and NIST AI RMF. This is readiness work, not certification.

scroll
Ask this first

When the model produces an unsafe answer, which independent mechanism detects, contains, and records the failure?

What this engagement is for

Safety architecture asks a different question than a conventional security review.

Apply functional-safety discipline to AI boundaries, independent monitoring, failure handling, and evidence.

Integro combines senior technical judgment with governed agentic delivery, then hands back the work with its evidence and limitations intact.

  • Good fitThe target can be bounded and the people, systems, or source material needed for review are available.
  • Not the right fitThe outcome is undefined or the work lacks the access and sponsorship needed to deliver responsibly.
  • Engagement outcomeA concrete result, a verified handoff, and a clear recommendation for the next decision.
What you get

The payoff is visible before the next ask.

How it works

A finite path with a clear stopping point.

Proof posture
Compare nearby lanes

Functional-Safety AI Architecture Review starts with fit and scope.

Share the system, workflow, or decision in front of you. We will confirm whether this lane fits, identify the information needed to scope it, and recommend a smaller or different start when appropriate.