Pricing

Defined scope. Transparent fees. Independent conclusions.

SWANK AI engagements are scoped and priced before substantive analytical work begins.

Pricing reflects:

  • analytical complexity;
  • evidence and documentation volume;
  • number of systems or workflows involved;
  • operational consequence;
  • relevant SIAAF domains;
  • analytical depth;
  • timeframe;
  • and the required written deliverable.

All substantive engagements are:

  • independently scoped;
  • evidence-oriented;
  • documented in writing;
  • defined in advance;
  • non-certifying;
  • and subject to clear analytical boundaries.

Fees purchase independent analytical work.

They do not purchase a particular conclusion.

Indicative Assurance Fees

The ranges below are indicative.

Final pricing is confirmed once the assurance question, evidence base and scope have been defined in writing.

01 — Short-Form Operational Review

USD $2,000–$4,000

A focused independent review of one clearly defined institutional, operational or AI-governance question.

The Short-Form Operational Review applies selected SIAAF domains where a wider institutional review would be disproportionate.

Appropriate for questions such as:

  • Is meaningful human review occurring?
  • Is an AI-supported process adequately documented?
  • Can a material conclusion be traced back to source evidence?
  • Does a challenge pathway permit genuine reconsideration?
  • Is responsibility for an AI-supported decision identifiable?
  • Is an existing AI policy operating as intended?
  • Are correction or override mechanisms adequate?
  • Is a proposed AI use appropriately governed?

Typical scope may include:

  • one defined assurance question;
  • selected documentation;
  • relevant workflow or policy review;
  • application of selected SIAAF domains;
  • evidence limitations;
  • focused challenge analysis.

Typical deliverable

A concise written assurance report including:

  • scope;
  • evidence reviewed;
  • observations;
  • analytical findings;
  • relevant SIAAF assessment;
  • limitations;
  • recommendations where appropriate;
  • unresolved questions.

Best suited to: a specific question requiring independent analysis without a broader institutional review.

02 — Communication & Feedback Systems Review

USD $3,500–$6,500

A structured examination of how evidence, information, uncertainty, concerns, corrections and challenges move through an institution.

This review primarily applies:

SIAAF Domain 03 — Evidence & Traceability

SIAAF Domain 04 — Communication & Feedback Integrity

SIAAF Domain 05 — Escalation, Challenge & Contestability

Other SIAAF domains may be applied where relevant.

Review may examine:

  • source-to-summary traceability;
  • internal communication pathways;
  • information loss;
  • handling of uncertainty;
  • correction mechanisms;
  • escalation routes;
  • challenge pathways;
  • reconsideration;
  • disputed-information handling;
  • accessibility;
  • human intervention;
  • institutional learning.

Typical deliverable

A structured written assurance report which may include:

  • communication-system analysis;
  • evidence-flow observations;
  • escalation and challenge assessment;
  • applicable SIAAF domain findings;
  • evidence-confidence assessment;
  • material risks;
  • recommendations;
  • unresolved questions;
  • institutional systems mapping where appropriate.

Best suited to: organisations where the principal concern lies in how information and human judgment move around an AI-assisted or complex institutional system.

03 — Full Institutional AI Assurance Review

USD $8,000–$15,000

SWANK AI’s principal assurance engagement.

The Full Institutional AI Assurance Review applies all seven domains of the SWANK Institutional AI Assurance Framework — SIAAF to a defined organisational system, programme, policy or AI-use environment.

The review examines:

01 — Governance & Accountability

02 — Decision Integrity & Human Oversight

03 — Evidence & Traceability

04 — Communication & Feedback Integrity

05 — Escalation, Challenge & Contestability

06 — Risk, Harm & Operational Resilience

07 — AI Literacy & Organisational Readiness

The review also applies the five cross-cutting SIAAF tests:

  • Reality Test;
  • Evidence Test;
  • Challenge Test;
  • Failure Test;
  • Reconstruction Test.

Typical deliverable

A substantial independent assurance report which may include:

  • Executive Assurance Summary;
  • Scope;
  • Methodology;
  • Evidence Base;
  • Evidence Limitations;
  • Institutional Systems Map;
  • Findings;
  • SIAAF Domain Assessment;
  • Assurance Status;
  • Evidence Confidence;
  • Material Risks;
  • Recommendation Priorities;
  • Unresolved Questions;
  • Evidence Appendix.

Best suited to: organisations requiring a system-wide assessment of whether AI governance arrangements operate coherently and effectively in practice.

Assurance Status

Where applicable, SIAAF findings may use the following assurance statuses:

A1 — EFFECTIVE

The institutional system is clearly defined, evidenced and functioning consistently.

A2 — PARTIALLY EFFECTIVE

Core arrangements exist, but identifiable weaknesses limit reliability or consistency.

A3 — WEAK

Material deficiencies exist in design, implementation, evidence or operation.

A4 — NOT DEMONSTRATED

Available evidence is insufficient to establish that an effective system exists.

The price of an engagement does not depend upon the assurance status ultimately reached.

Evidence Confidence

Relevant findings may separately be designated:

HIGH

MODERATE

LOW

Evidence confidence and institutional effectiveness are assessed separately.

A higher fee does not purchase greater certainty.

The analytical language used remains proportionate to the evidence available.

Custom Institutional Engagements

Some engagements cannot be responsibly priced within a standard range.

This may apply where the proposed review involves:

  • multiple organisational systems;
  • substantial evidence volumes;
  • multiple AI use cases;
  • several operational environments;
  • complex stakeholder structures;
  • particularly high-consequence processes;
  • extensive institutional systems mapping;
  • phased assurance work;
  • or a materially extended timeframe.

These engagements are scoped individually.

A written proposal identifies:

  • the assurance question;
  • applicable SIAAF domains;
  • evidence requirements;
  • exclusions;
  • analytical stages;
  • deliverables;
  • timeframe;
  • and fee.

No substantive work begins until scope and pricing have been agreed.

Sector-Specific Work

SIAAF may be applied within different institutional environments, including:

  • education;
  • public administration;
  • healthcare;
  • employment;
  • safeguarding;
  • professional services;
  • technology;
  • regulated environments;
  • high-consequence decision systems.

Sector does not automatically determine price.

The relevant factors are the question, evidence, complexity, consequence and scope.

Education-specific teaching, curriculum and AI-literacy work delivered through SWANK EDUCATION may be priced separately from SWANK AI assurance engagements.

Institutional Briefings

Where appropriate, a defined institutional briefing may be commissioned separately or alongside an assurance engagement.

Briefings may concern:

  • SIAAF findings;
  • AI governance;
  • meaningful human oversight;
  • AI literacy;
  • automation bias;
  • evidence and traceability;
  • high-stakes AI governance;
  • institutional accountability;
  • implementation risks.

Briefings are scoped individually according to audience, preparation requirements and subject matter.

They remain educational and analytical.

They do not constitute certification, legal advice or regulatory approval.

What the Fee Covers

Depending upon scope, an engagement fee may include:

  • scope development;
  • evidence intake;
  • evidence registration;
  • documentation review;
  • evidence mapping;
  • SIAAF analysis;
  • challenge analysis;
  • institutional systems analysis;
  • written findings;
  • assurance assessment;
  • recommendations;
  • factual accuracy review where appropriate;
  • preparation of the final written deliverable.

The written scope identifies what is included before work begins.

Scope and Documentation Volume

Pricing assumes the documentation volume identified during scoping.

Where materially greater evidence is subsequently introduced, SWANK AI does not simply expand the engagement indefinitely.

If new material substantially changes:

  • the analytical question;
  • evidence volume;
  • number of systems;
  • timeframe;
  • or required deliverable,

additional work is separately scoped before it begins.

This protects both pricing transparency and analytical discipline.

Phased Engagements

Where appropriate, larger reviews may be divided into separately scoped phases.

For example:

Phase 1 — Scope & Evidence Mapping

Phase 2 — Institutional Systems Analysis

Phase 3 — Full Assurance Assessment

Phase 4 — Final Report

A phased approach may be appropriate where the evidence base is substantial or the appropriate breadth of review cannot be determined responsibly at the outset.

Each phase is agreed before work proceeds.

Pricing and Independence

No Outcome-Contingent Fees

SWANK AI does not charge according to whether an engagement reaches:

  • a positive conclusion;
  • a critical conclusion;
  • an effective rating;
  • a weak rating;
  • or any other predetermined outcome.

Payment is for the analytical work required to answer the agreed question.

No Predetermined Findings

The commissioning organisation may define the question.

It may identify relevant evidence.

It may correct factual inaccuracies.

It does not purchase editorial control over SWANK AI’s analytical findings.

The evidence determines the answer.

Initial Enquiries

An initial enquiry should ordinarily identify:

  • the organisation or system concerned;
  • the assurance question;
  • the AI use or proposed use, where applicable;
  • the principal evidence available;
  • approximate documentation volume;
  • relevant deadlines;
  • and the intended purpose of the review.

The enquiry is used to assess scope suitability.

It is not an unpaid substantive assurance engagement.

Reduced-Scope Work

Where a proposed engagement is broader than necessary, SWANK AI may recommend a narrower scope.

A smaller review may sometimes answer the relevant question more effectively than a larger one.

The purpose of scoping is not to maximise the size of an engagement.

It is to determine the proportionate level of analysis required.

Currency & Invoicing

Fees are ordinarily quoted and invoiced in US dollars (USD) through SWANK London LLC, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Any applicable:

  • taxes;
  • transfer costs;
  • agreed third-party expenses;
  • or additional scoped work

will be identified separately where relevant.

Fees and payment arrangements are confirmed before substantive work begins.

Important Boundaries

Unless separately stated and appropriately qualified, SWANK AI fees do not purchase:

  • statutory certification;
  • legal advice;
  • ISO certification;
  • regulatory approval;
  • compliance sign-off;
  • financial audit;
  • cybersecurity penetration testing;
  • source-code auditing;
  • marketing endorsement;
  • predetermined conclusions;
  • guarantees that an AI system is safe;
  • guarantees of regulatory compliance;
  • guaranteed implementation outcomes.

SIAAF provides independent analytical assurance concerning institutional systems and available evidence.

Choosing the Right Review

Short-Form Operational Review

USD $2,000–$4,000

For one defined question.

Communication & Feedback Systems Review

USD $3,500–$6,500

For evidence, communication, correction, escalation and challenge pathways.

Full Institutional AI Assurance Review

USD $8,000–$15,000

For a comprehensive seven-domain institutional AI assurance assessment.

If the appropriate scope is unclear, it can be determined through the initial enquiry process.

Pricing Principle

PRICING REFLECTS ANALYTICAL WORK, NOT OUTCOMES

SWANK AI charges for:

scope

evidence review

analysis

challenge

documentation

independent judgment

The commissioning organisation defines the question.

The evidence determines the answer.

Enquiries

For assurance enquiries:

ai@swanklondon.com

View Assurance Services →

Explore SIAAF →

See How We Work →

Read Standards & Independence →

SWANK AI

Independent assurance. Defined scope. Transparent pricing.

We do not just review AI. We review the institutional systems responsible for governing it.

Scroll to Top