3BrainAIScope & baseline
Identify the asset, phase or unit; supply the authoritative milestone record, version, date and responsible owner.
From professional interest to an agreed bank pilot
Define the evidence.
Test the review.
Turn one bank review question into an explicit test of scope, usable sources, reviewer responsibilities and acceptance criteria alongside existing controls.
Product history and demonstrator development
Product maturity / complete history
One product history.
Explicit next gates.
-
01
Completed
Idea and problem definition
The problem and responsible decision boundary were defined.
-
02
Completed
Product concept and illustrative prototypes
The intended Evidence Pack format and review grammar were made visible.
-
03
Current
Proof of Concept
Evaluate review logic, source suitability and reviewer fit on a controlled case; institutional validation remains to be completed.
-
04
Next
Paid Pilot
Contracted institution-specific configuration and calibration after agreed gates.
-
05
Target
Commercial deployment
Recurring assisted workflow within an institution after agreed acceptance.
The completed stages describe product history; each bank begins with its own question and agreed scope.
The engagement stages and their outputs
Institution-specific engagement
Agree the work
one gate at a time.
Your bank starts with its question. Each gate defines the work, its output and the basis for continuing, refining or stopping.
| Stage | What we do together | Concrete output |
|---|---|---|
| 1 / Evidence Readiness Check | Clarify the professional question, scope, available inputs and owner. | Continue, refine or stop with a reason. |
| 2 / Bank demonstrator | Walk through the full process with bank reviewers: scope, baseline, suitability, calibration, a scoped reply and its review. | A defined workflow and bank input list. |
| 3 / Agreed preparation | Confirm rights, authoritative records, reference truth, reviewers and measurement conditions. | A bounded scope for configuration and calibration. |
| 4 / Contracted paid pilot | Configure, calibrate and evaluate an agreed sample alongside existing controls. | Measured results, limitations and an acceptance discussion. |
| 5 / Recurring operational use | Move to an assisted workflow only after agreed acceptance, governance and procurement conditions. | An agreed operating scope and recurring service terms. |
Joint work with the bank
A pilot with active participation.
A paid pilot is joint work between 3BrainAI and the relevant bank departments, with configuration and calibration scoped to their environment and review tasks.
Depending on the task, collaboration may involve property monitoring, risk or corporate banking teams, alongside IT, AI and security specialists. Data handling, access rights and integration with existing systems also need to be assessed. Any independent review required for bank-process controls and AI governance should have a separately agreed scope and clear responsibilities.
Development responsibilities →
Test the workflow in a banking context.
We are preparing an initial professional review with representatives of one bank operating in Czechia to assess whether the complete workflow and outputs are understandable and useful for their departments. Scope and participation details remain subject to agreement and confidentiality.
The discussion will explain the technical methods and their limits; analytical correctness requires a separate assessment against suitable reference data and defined criteria.
The bank’s contribution
The question needs
its context.
Evidence & rights
Identify available records and permitted uses. Agree access, retention and distribution for the selected engagement.
People & reference truth
Nominate the process owner and competent reviewers. Agree what will count as a supported answer and who confirms it.
A comparison baseline
Define the current preparation and review process before measuring time, rework or usefulness.
Technical gates and stop conditions
Technical validation contract
Define what passes.
Keep the stop conditions.
Agree the evidence required for each gate before evaluating results.
| Gate | Evidence retained | If the basis is insufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Scope & baseline | Asset or phase identity, revision, question and responsible reviewer. | Refine the question before analysis. |
| Source suitability | Rights, provenance, dates, coverage, resolution and known exclusions. | Record limited evidence; request another source or stop the inference. |
| Candidate & calibration | Versioned analytical proposal, reason codes, uncertainty and agreed reference truth. | Withhold an unsupported conclusion; keep the review pending where a response is still needed. |
| Human acceptance | Competent reviewer, reviewed basis, accepted scope, exclusions and version. | Continue, refine or stop with an explicit reason. No automatic bank decision. |
Workflow fit before performance claims.
Evidence readability
Can a reviewer quickly distinguish observation, bounded conclusion and uncertainty?
Review usefulness
Does the output help the reviewer identify the right next question?
Uncertainty handling
Are insufficient evidence, data limitations and interpretation boundaries visible?
Governance fit
Can the Evidence Pack fit the institution’s roles, controls and decision ownership?
A PoC evaluates workflow fit. It does not promise performance outcomes in advance.
How the work will be measured
Measurement before promises
Evaluate the work
against agreed criteria.
| Question to measure | Evidence retained |
|---|---|
| Are the inputs available and suitable? | An inventory of required, available, missing and unsuitable sources with reasons. |
| Do scope, date and version match? | Recorded matches, mismatches and unresolved questions. |
| Is the next step clear and usable? | Reviewer feedback, ownership and fit with existing controls. |
| How does the work compare? | Preparation, active review, waiting and rework measured against the agreed baseline. |
Classification performance can be evaluated only where suitable reference truth exists. No time saving, accuracy or service level is assumed in advance.
Review in parallel.
Keep live decisions separate.
Existing review process – unchanged
Project review
Responsible reviewer
Live decision process
CRI output reviewed in parallel
Candidate output
Human review
No effect on live decisions
What a contracted paid pilot covers
Configuration and calibration
A paid pilot has an agreed operating scope.
Each paid pilot is tailored to your cases and review needs. We agree the deliverables, any specialist advisory work and the total project budget before the pilot starts.
Review logic & roles
Define the use case, responsible roles, review expectations and ownership.
Inputs & milestones
Agree the cases, milestones, pilot duration and output cadence with the bank.
Working environment
Agree the relevant data handling, security and configuration scope.
Operation & evaluation
Run an agreed sample and evaluate the workflow against explicit gates.
Engagement types and commitments
Different engagements
Keep the purpose
and commitment clear.
Professional discussion
A focused conversation or reference-case walkthrough to assess relevance.
Historical study, if agreed
A separately scoped exercise using a defined period and permitted historical records.
Paid pilot
Institution-specific configuration, calibration and evaluation with agreed roles, criteria and terms.
Earlier study durations are not a standing commercial offer. Shadow mode means review alongside existing controls without affecting live bank decisions.
Prepared walkthrough and live demonstration
The Brief is available now. A separate CRI demonstrator is in final development, with a demonstration planned for October 2026. Institution-specific configuration, calibration and evaluation require an agreed scope and responsible human review.
Before the conversation
A few practical answers.
Who can use the bank demonstrator?
Banking professionals. An external technical adviser may participate within the bank’s process; the bank determines the roles and authority.
What if imagery cannot answer the question?
We make the limitation explicit, consider suitable documentary or other evidence, refine the scope or stop. Missing observation is not evidence of no change.
Where can I request access to The Brief?
Are notes from The Brief transferred?
No. Add the question you want to discuss yourself. Do not include confidential client information in the initial enquiry.
Professional request
Tell us what
you want to assess.
Discuss a specific review question and the evidence your team needs.
Want to explore The Brief? Request free access · I have an access code
Access is free for invited visitors. We review each request and send invitations by email.
Prepare a professional request
Describe the property, available records and what your team needs to establish. Use non-confidential details only.
Direct contact: cri@3brain.ai