sgit newsroom v0.1.29 · snapshot 2026-09-24

Reading room · vaults

On this page

Reading room / vaults · raw text

From vaults, a file in the seed packEverything on this sheet is the source site's own text; the newsroom's chrome is outside it.

2. The method, and where it comes from

The method is already published across four places. This plan adopts it and points at the sources rather than restating them in full.

The principles

The ten principles the app displays are in plan.json. The ones that carry the business:

  1. Every risk is already accepted; the question is by whom, and for how long.
  2. There is no deny button.
  3. Accept, fund or fix. Silence escalates.
  4. The interval is the decision.
  5. A named person, and no delegation.
  6. Every path ends at the board.
  7. Accepted is not acceptable.
  8. Established by facts, ended by facts.
  9. GRC validates, the business accepts.

The ladder

As published on risks.sgit.ai:

RungWhat it means
1 hour"I need more data." Fetch it now.
4 hoursA priority-one incident. Trigger incident response.
1 to 2 daysA smaller incident.
1 to 2 weeksA funded project for a team that already exists.
1 monthAssemble and fund. The default rung, set just above the incident line.
6 monthsDo nothing, and review it then. Legitimate, with a name on it.

RiskMandate.ai's "Accepted is not acceptable" page publishes different bands (1 to 24 hours, 1 day to 1 week, 1 week to 1 month as the default, 1 to 3 months, over 3 months). The plan uses the risks.sgit.ai ladder and lists the reconciliation as an open question.

Accepted is not acceptable

Accepted is an act by a named person at a dated moment. Acceptable is a threshold: in RiskMandate's words, "the moment that the business is happy to stop funding remediation activities". They are two separate questions with four combinations, and the dangerous one is a risk over the line that nobody has accepted.

The EU AI Act makes this concrete for one class of organisation. Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 requires providers of high-risk AI systems to adopt risk management measures "such that the relevant residual risk associated with each hazard, as well as the overall residual risk of the high-risk AI systems is judged to be acceptable". The Act never defines "acceptable". The duty to judge is imposed, and the standard is not supplied, so an organisation has to draw its own line and be able to show it did. Sources: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj ↗ and https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/9/ ↗.

What the method does not yet say, and this plan proposes