Start with one representative-system assessment. Expand only where the evidence justifies it.
The first commercial step is usually a bounded Assessment on one representative system. If you need a lower-risk entry point first, use a tightly scoped pilot on owned code, then expand into recurring review only when there is a clear reason to do so.
Most organizations should begin with the Assessment.
The Assessment is the most credible first step because it creates one bounded baseline on a representative system. Scoped Pilot exists for teams that need a smaller paid step first.
Assessment
Start with one representative system and create a bounded baseline leadership and engineering can review together.
The Assessment is the strongest first engagement for most organizations. It produces a structured baseline, remediation priorities, and an evidence-backed readout for software that must be approved, inherited, integrated, or modernized.
Teams that need the first decision-grade baseline on a representative system before approval, inheritance, integration, modernization, or recurring governance work.
- One representative system reviewed with all applicable stewards
- Structured findings with severity, file references, and recommendations
- Bounded baseline and remediation priorities
- Leadership and engineering readout for the system under review
Scoped Pilot
Use a tightly bounded repo slice or service to prove relevance before the full representative-system assessment.
Scoped Pilot is intentionally narrow. It is a paid, credited evaluation on code your team already owns, designed to prove whether the assessment model is relevant before committing to the full baseline.
Teams that want a smaller paid entry step on owned code before committing to the full representative-system assessment.
- One bounded repo slice or service
- 2-4 applicable stewards
- Short findings brief
- Live walkthrough
- Recommendation on whether a full Assessment is warranted
100% credited toward the Assessment within 90 days
- No full baseline package
- No trend tracking
- No accepted-findings workflow
- No grounding docs
- No executive-ready readout
Expand only when recurring review is already justified.
Annual programs matter when you have periodic vendor reviews, post-remediation follow-up, modernization checkpoints, or critical systems that need recurring governance.
Continuous
For organizations with recurring review checkpoints on critical software.
Continuous extends the initial baseline into recurring checkpoints for vendor review, post-remediation verification, modernization tracking, or periodic governance on critical systems.
Organizations with recurring review checkpoints on critical systems, vendor-delivered software, or remediation work.
- Recurring runs within an agreed repo and workspace scope
- Scheduled and on-demand trend tracking
- Grounded standards reused across recurring reviews
- Accepted findings workflow with audit trail
- Quarterly executive summary reports
Custom Governance Program
For organizations that need grounded standards, custom steward coverage, and deeper workflow integration.
This tier adds deeper implementation support for internal frameworks, extended platform coverage, vendor scorecards, and workflow integration where the recurring program is already justified.
Organizations that need grounded standards, custom steward coverage, and deeper workflow integration after the recurring model is already useful.
- Everything in Continuous
- Custom steward development for internal frameworks
- Extended platform and runtime coverage
- Private executive reporting and dashboard concepts
- Dedicated architect support
- Vendor scorecard templates
- CI/CD integration and enterprise rollout support
Public pricing is shown as anchor pricing. Final scope depends on the representative system, repo boundaries, review cadence, grounding requirements, and reporting needs.
Common questions
Start with one representative system. That first assessment creates the bounded baseline future scope can build on.
The goal is to make one real software decision with better evidence. Expand into recurring review only when the first assessment proves where follow-up is worth it.