ShipReady MetricsShipReady Metrics
Get started

AI that governs AI.

Deterministic EU AI Act and ISO/IEC 42001 governance over your AI inventory — and a platform that refuses to certify what it can't prove. Classification, the seven obligations, penalty band, and a per-system deploy go/no-go.

Not Verified over a guessed number.

Get your ShipReady Score or book a live walkthrough

Why it matters

Governing the AI itself is the hardest new compliance problem.

Every GRC tool on the market will hand you a confident compliance dashboard. The EU AI Act doesn't reward confidence — it asks whether each AI system is classified, assessed, overseen, and logged, and it fines the gap. A guessed answer is worse than none.

ShipReady classifies each AI system against the Act's own risk taxonomy, catches under-classification, grades the governance obligations, quantifies the penalty exposure, and answers the deployer's real question — can I put this into service? — with the blockers named. This is Gartner's AI Governance / AI TRiSM applied to the SDLC, from the foundation model down to the deployed system.

What makes it different

Three pillars a green dashboard can't stand on.

01 · The moat

Not Verified over a guessed number

Every rival hands you a confident compliance dashboard. Our engine does the opposite when the evidence isn't there — it renders Not Verified instead of a fabricated grade. Coverage is confidence, and confidence gates the headline. Mutation-tested, so the honesty cannot silently regress.

02 · AI governing AI

The EU AI Act + ISO 42001, deterministically

Deterministic governance over your AI inventory — classification, the seven obligations including human oversight and record-keeping, GPAI foundation-model duties (Art. 53/55), the deployer's fundamental-rights assessment (Art. 27), enforceability dates, penalty band, and a per-system conformity go/no-go — every verdict mutation-locked so a pass is never fabricated over an absent subject.

03 · Customer zero

Built by AI agents, governed by the product

One founder directing AI agents, the whole company governed by its own product — with a public maturity score that moves only when a real capability lands with a locking test. The platform you'd buy is the platform that built it.

04 · The core failure

We catch under-classification

Declaring a high-risk system “minimal” is the central EU AI Act failure. The classifier maps each use-case to its tier from the Act's own taxonomy and flags when the declared tier is lower than the Act implies — an unmapped use-case is review-required, never a guessed tier.

05 · Provider and deployer

The duties split the way the Act splits them

A general-purpose model you provide carries Art. 53/55; a third-party high-risk system you deploy carries the Art. 27 FRIA and the Art. 26 reliance on the provider's conformity — graded as distinct duties, so an in-house system is never charged an obligation the Act places on someone else.

06 · The deployer's real question

“Can I put this system into service?”

A per-system Art. 43 go/no-go — ready, blocked, review-required, or not-applicable — with the concrete blockers named, plus the maximum Art. 99 penalty band stated with the “% of worldwide turnover” formula (never a euro figure invented from unknown turnover).

Before and after

From an AI register in a spreadsheet to a governed inventory.

The old way

A spreadsheet and a hope

AI systems tracked in a doc, obligations no one has mapped, and a risk tier someone guessed. When the Act's deadlines land, you can't say which systems are high-risk or whether any is cleared to deploy.

With ShipReady

A governed AI inventory

Each system classified against the Act, its obligations graded from real artifacts, under-classification flagged, a penalty band on the exposure, and a per-system deploy go/no-go — with anything unproven shown as Not Verified, never a fabricated pass.

Who it's for

Built for the teams the AI Act actually names.

If you build AI

AI-native companies

You need SOC 2 and the EU AI Act at once. Governing both in one platform — with the same evidence discipline — beats stitching a compliance tool to a separate AI-governance tool.

If the AI Act applies to you

Teams facing EU AI Act deadlines

Know which of your systems are high-risk, which obligations are already in force, what a gap would cost as a penalty band, and whether a system is cleared to deploy — before a regulator asks.

If you deploy someone else's AI

Deployers of third-party models

You carry the fundamental-rights assessment and the reliance on the provider's conformity. We track exactly those deployer duties — and never charge you the provider's obligations.

Customer zero

The platform you'd buy is the platform that built it.

ShipReady is built by AI agents under one founder's direction, and the whole company is governed by its own product. Its maturity is scored by a repeatable rater whose number moves only when a real capability lands with a locking test — never inflated to look good.

That is the proof behind the pitch: we hold ourselves to the same Not-Verified discipline we sell, so the honesty is a property of the platform, not a promise on a slide.

AI governing AI · measured, not marketing

113

real defects found by AI agents and fixed, test-first

~2,600

adversarial + property tests written and run against itself

0

fabricated findings — every fix verified before it shipped

down / hold

the only direction a fix can move a score — never up dishonestly

Fleets of AI agents, governed by the platform's own honesty rules, wrote and ran tests to break the code that builds the product — and fixed every place a number could have been shown without proof. The governor and the governed are the same discipline.

Govern your AI before a regulator asks you to.

A verdict you can defend, or an honest Not Verified.

Book a live walkthrough

Governance readiness is an internal indicator, not a certification.