Establishing the clinical AI governance standard, with the institutions it will measure.
AIGX Health v1.2 is currently in development. AIGX Research is convening four organizations for a comprehensive governance assessment of one AI system in clinical or operational use, or in active pre-deployment, at no cost, with the findings informing the control set, evidence requirements and critical-gate thresholds prior to publication.
The boundary of this engagement, stated in full.
Assurance predicated on ambiguity has no value. The scope is therefore defined explicitly at the outset, in both directions.
| In scope | Out of scope |
|---|---|
| A comprehensive control-to-obligation mapping for one AI system currently in operation | An issued AIGX rating. None have been issued, and none will be prior to publication of v1.2 |
| Gate analysis identifying the findings that would constrain a rating under present conditions | Certification, audit opinion or regulatory clearance of any description |
| A documented remediation roadmap specifying owners, artifacts and sequence | A software evaluation. The platform is not the subject of this engagement |
| A framework review session in which participant objections are incorporated | A commercial process presented in the form of an assessment |
What each party contributes.
Participation carries no fee. It does carry a cost: the sustained attention of your governance owners. We ask that this be assessed candidly at the outset rather than reconsidered mid-engagement.
Assessment deliverable
One system assessed against draft AIGX Health v1.2, delivered as a gate report suitable for board and procurement review.
Framework input
Direct input into the controls, thresholds and critical-gate definitions applied across the sector following publication.
Queue position
Priority within the issuance queue upon release of AIGX Health v1.2, together with named founding-partner attribution on the published framework, or full anonymity at the participant’s discretion.
Participant commitment
Evidence access under non-disclosure agreement; named accountable owners in clinical safety, data privacy and engineering; and approximately 12 to 16 hours of their time across six weeks.
Four places, disclosed publicly.
The ledger below reflects the current state of the cohort and is updated as places are allocated. An accurate empty row is preferable to an implied level of demand.
| Place | Organization | System | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| FP-01 | Reserved — regional hospital network | Clinical triage · high risk class | Held |
| FP-02 | Under review — diagnostic imaging vendor | SaMD · scoping complete | In review |
| FP-03 | Open | Preference: documentation or scribe systems | Open |
| FP-04 | Open | Preference: payer or population health | Open |
Allocation basis
Places are allocated on the basis of system diversity rather than order of application. A cohort comprising four comparable systems would yield a framework applicable only to comparable systems.
Six weeks from scoping to gate report.
The sequence is ordered because each stage depends on its predecessor. Timings are indicative and follow the availability of participant evidence owners.
Scoping
The parties agree the single system in scope, its risk classification, and the accountable owners for clinical safety, privacy and engineering. Either party may withdraw without cost.
Evidence request
The participant receives the draft control set specifying the artifact required against each requirement. Absent artifacts are recorded as absent; assertion is not credited.
Mapping and review
Each artifact is mapped to its obligation and assigned a state of validated, in review or blocker. Contested determinations are recorded with the participant’s reasoning, not resolved unilaterally.
Gate report
Domain scores, open critical gates and the remediation roadmap — the evidentiary basis on which a rating would rest, designated an assessment rather than a rating.
Framework review
The framework’s deficiencies: controls that proved unmeasurable, gates calibrated at inappropriate severity, and evidence that health systems do not in practice hold.
Suitability for the founding cohort.
The determining factor is whether a system exists in production and an accountable owner can be identified.
| Suitable where | Not suitable where |
|---|---|
| The organization operates at least one AI system in clinical or operational use, or in active pre-deployment | A certificate, seal or attestation is required against a fixed deadline |
| A procurement, board or regulatory discussion concerning that system is already scheduled | The system is a prototype without an accountable owner or a defined production path |
| Accountable owners for clinical safety, privacy and monitoring can be identified at the point of application | Evidence access requires an approval chain exceeding six weeks |
| The organization accepts that findings will be recorded as blockers rather than moderated | The objective is a favorable determination rather than an accurate one |
Submit one system for consideration.
An application should identify the system, its risk classification as the organization understands it, and the individual accountable for its clinical safety. AIGX Research responds within three working days in all cases, including where an application is declined.
Submit an applicationNotice
© 2026 AIGX Research™. The founding partner program delivers a governance assessment and does not constitute an issued rating. AIGX Health v1.2 remains in draft and no ratings have been issued under it. Nothing on this page constitutes legal, regulatory, clinical or investment advice.