Home/Methodology
Evidence before recommendations
Structured questions make the assessment consistent. Clear evidence standards and explicit decision gates keep the recommendations accountable.
We begin with a specific business objective, the workflow in question, a named sponsor, and agreed scope. The assessment should help the client decide what to prepare or evaluate—not produce a list of tools to purchase.
Findings distinguish reviewed evidence, client-reported statements, and analyst inferences. A missing document or unanswered question remains visible. Interviews are useful inputs, but they are not automatically independent verification.
Each of the 30 questions has a question-specific rubric on a 0–3 scale. The broad progression runs from absent or unestablished capability toward documented, repeatable practice. We average the five questions in each domain to show where preparation is needed.
Unknown evidence is conservatively scored 0 and separately counted. Blank responses remain incomplete. A low score caused by an observed gap is distinguished from a low score caused by missing evidence.
A directional use-case score considers value, frequency, feasibility, data readiness, risk, and human oversight. It helps prioritize analysis. It does not authorize deployment.
Purpose:
a named owner, an understood baseline, and a measurable objective.
Data and permissions:
approved sources, appropriate access, and understood processing boundaries.
Tool and vendor review:
relevant terms, data handling, and unresolved specialist issues addressed.
Human oversight:
explicit review responsibilities and limits on autonomous actions.
Evaluation:
success thresholds, unacceptable outcomes, and a decision date.
Fallback:
a practical way to stop and resume the manual process.
The analyst explains the recommendation; the MSP reviews it; the client’s sponsor owns the business decision. A proposed pilot is not implementation permission. Failed prerequisites stay open until there is evidence that they have been resolved.
The method is informed by the NIST AI Risk Management Framework’s Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage functions and the NIST Generative AI Profile. Our six-domain questionnaire is Nerode’s own advisory structure. It is not a NIST certification or a formal conformity assessment.
Tell us about your MSP and an AI question your clients are asking.
Discuss your first assessment ↗
Clear thinking. Practical AI readiness. Built for the MSP–client relationship.
A division of Panopticon Media House.
© 2026 Nerode Labs · Panopticon Media House