Start from the evidence
Use governed records as the basis for a draft your reviewers can check.
Agentic Studio · Evidence into reporting
From register to report.With you in control.
Start with the records your governance team already maintains. Agentic Studio prepares assessment, board report and regulatory submission drafts, giving reviewers the evidence, open questions and approval path they need to make the report their own.
Built for your institution. Shaped around your data.
Source recordsReport draftsOwner approval
Start with a working briefEXAMPLE
Draft the assessment of our supplier-review control.
A useful draft makes the missing evidence hard to overlook.
Focus the review
Bring the important findings, missing information and decisions into the report.
Keep approval human
Named owners review the reasoning and authorise the final output.
SEE IT IN ACTION
Let the first draft do useful work.
See how the same evidence can support different reporting conversations.
01 / 03
Make the evidence easy to challenge.
Prepare an assessment draft that separates supported observations from questions still waiting for evidence.
- Draft from the selected requirements, controls and test records.
- Keep gaps visible for the specialist reviewing the conclusion.
Interactive example with fictional data. The product’s configuration and interface may differ.
Evidence and reporting Example workspace
REPORT BRIEF
Draft the assessment of our supplier-review control.
Source recordsDraftOwner review
Draft assessment: the review procedure defines the required control, but completion evidence is missing for the selected period. The reviewer should request that evidence before concluding that the control operated effectively.
A useful draft makes the missing evidence hard to overlook.
THE CONTEXT BEHIND THE ANSWER3 example records
Control record
Supplier review · Procedure defined
Fictional record for this example. Test scope
Current assessment period · Operating effectiveness
Fictional record for this example. Evidence checklist
Completed review record · Not supplied
Fictional record for this example.02 / 03
Put the decision in the foreground.
Turn register detail into a draft narrative that helps the committee see what needs attention.
- Connect the reporting narrative to the underlying risk and action records.
- Bring unresolved decisions forward without losing their evidence.
Interactive example with fictional data. The product’s configuration and interface may differ.
Evidence and reporting Example workspace
REPORT BRIEF
What should the committee hear about the continuity risk?
Source recordsDraftOwner review
Draft committee summary: continuity risk remains above appetite while the recovery action is open. The action owner has proposed a revised exercise date. The committee is asked to review the interim response and the outstanding exposure.
The report leads with the decision the evidence calls for.
THE CONTEXT BEHIND THE ANSWER3 example records
Risk register
Continuity risk · Above appetite
Fictional record for this example. Action plan
Recovery exercise · Revised date proposed
Fictional record for this example. Committee brief
Interim response and remaining exposure · Decision requested
Fictional record for this example.03 / 03
Prepare the package. Keep the approval.
Assemble working submission material with the source set and release responsibility in view.
- Prepare the draft against the reporting structure and selected records.
- Keep specialist checks and named approval before any release.
Interactive example with fictional data. The product’s configuration and interface may differ.
Evidence and reporting Example workspace
REPORT BRIEF
Is the submission draft ready for approval?
Source recordsDraftOwner review
The draft includes the requested assessment and action summary. One evidence reference still needs confirmation. The compliance reviewer must resolve it before the named owner can approve the package for authorised submission.
The draft moves forward with its remaining responsibility clearly marked.
THE CONTEXT BEHIND THE ANSWER3 example records
Draft package
Assessment and action summary · Included
Fictional record for this example. Review checklist
Evidence reference E-12 · Confirmation pending
Fictional record for this example. Approval route
Compliance review, then accountable owner approval
Fictional record for this example.THE CAPABILITIES BEHIND IT
Make the register the starting point for reporting.
Build the report from the evidence lifecycle your team already maintains. Give reviewers a structured draft and a clear route back to the records behind the narrative.
BUILT AROUND YOUR TEAM
Risk, compliance, assurance and governance teams preparing recurring assessments and oversight material.
01Draft from the core register
Use selected Aliph Risk & Compliance records as the starting point. Define the reporting period, organisational scope and source set so a reviewer can understand what the draft covers.
02Prepare structured assessments
Bring relevant requirements, control tests and findings into an assessment draft. Keep the evidence and unresolved questions in view while specialists evaluate the reasoning and conclusion.
03Develop board and oversight reports
Organise register information into a narrative for the intended committee or decision-maker. Surface the matters that need attention, with supporting records available for closer review.
04Assemble regulatory submission drafts
Prepare working submission material from the selected records and reporting structure. Specialist review and named approval remain required before the package is released through the institution’s authorised process.
05Route work to named owners
Identify who checks the source information, who resolves a gap and who accepts the final output. Build correction, rejection and approval into the reporting workflow.
06Preserve the reporting context
Connect the selected inputs, draft and review decisions. Maintain the context needed to understand which record set informed the report and why the final wording was accepted.
From the register to an approved reporting package.Explore the process
Define the report
Set the purpose, audience, reporting period and expected structure. Name the reviewer and the owner authorised to approve the output.
Select governed records
Choose the requirements, risks, controls, tests, findings and actions relevant to the scope. Check completeness before drafting.
Prepare the draft
Develop an assessment or reporting narrative from the selected information. Preserve source context and identify evidence that still needs attention.
Review and resolve
Specialists check the facts, reasoning and scope. Correct the narrative and resolve missing or conflicting information with the record owners.
Approve and release
The named owner accepts the final version. Release or submission follows the institution’s authorised process and the permissions established for the workflow.
YOUR DATA. YOUR DECISIONS.
Built around the report your reviewers need.
Connect the source register, reporting structure and decision rights. Make a familiar review process easier to run without changing who is accountable for its conclusions.
Explore the Aliph approachYour reporting structure
Use the sections, reporting periods and evidence expectations your committee or assessment requires.
Your source records
Select the register information behind each report and preserve the context needed to inspect it.
Your named approvers
Keep correction, rejection and final approval with the people authorised to accept the output.
Plan your first implementation
Start with a real reporting package
Bring the existing report, its source register and the questions its audience expects it to answer. Identify recurring sections, manual interpretation and common evidence gaps.
Define the source and review model
Set the reporting scope, record selection and completeness criteria. Assign the people who validate evidence, correct the draft and authorise release.
Test the full approval path
Evaluate drafting with representative records, missing evidence and late changes. Prepare the team to maintain reporting structures, model settings and permissions through a controlled change process.
What to evaluate. Check whether the draft accurately represents the selected register and reporting period. Assess source support, completeness, treatment of unresolved findings and review effort. Test rejection, corrected records and attempts to release material before named approval.
A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT
Make your next
decision an informed one.
Your questions, answered.
Does Agentic Studio replace the core GRC register?
No. Aliph Risk & Compliance provides the underlying records and evidence lifecycle. Agentic Studio uses those governed inputs to prepare assessments and reporting material, keeping the report connected to its source.
Which reporting tasks does it support?
The product focuses on assessments, board and oversight reports, and regulatory submission drafts. The implementation defines the report structures, input records and review responsibilities appropriate to the institution.
Who approves a generated report?
A named owner authorised by the institution approves the output. Specialists check evidence and interpretation first, and unresolved issues follow the agreed escalation path. The AI-generated document remains a draft until the required review and approval are complete.
Does it submit material to a regulator automatically?
The product prepares draft submission material. Final approval and submission authority remain with the institution. Any export, integration or release action must be explicitly included in the approved workflow.
What happens when register information is incomplete?
The workflow should expose the gap and direct it to the responsible owner. Reviewers decide whether additional evidence is needed, a limitation must be stated or the report should wait before approval.
YOUR NEXT CHAPTER
Bring the report your team rebuilds every month.
We’ll connect its sections to the register and show where a first draft can give reviewers a better starting point.