Mandate
Review methodology, conflicts, AI assurance and material incidents—not daily headlines or commercial sales.
This charter defines who can oversee GOV.TODAY Intelligence, how AI may be used, how evidence is handled and where commercial or policy outreach must stop.
GOV.TODAY does not sell a predetermined conclusion. Clients may define a question and delivery window; they do not rewrite evidence, hide material limitations or prevent a necessary correction.
Founding appointments are open. No individual is presented as appointed until consent, conflict review and public disclosure are complete.
Academics protect methodological depth. Practitioners test operational relevance. Independent ethics expertise protects the public-interest boundary.
Independent chair — methodology and data governance
Two public-administration or security-policy academics
Two former digital-government or regulatory practitioners
One OSINT, sanctions or trade-data specialist
One independent ethics or civil-society member
Review methodology, conflicts, AI assurance and material incidents—not daily headlines or commercial sales.
Two-year staggered terms, annual conflict disclosures and recusal from affected decisions.
Public charter, membership, meeting summaries and an annual assurance statement.
The control model is aligned to NIST AI RMF, the OECD AI Principles and relevant EU AI Act obligations. Legal applicability is assessed use case by use case.
A named editor owns every high-impact conclusion and the final publication decision.
Sources, retrieval dates, transformations and model-assisted steps are recorded.
Material outputs are checked for factual error, bias, leakage and unsupported inference.
Decision-relevant claims must be understandable without access to a proprietary model.
Access is role-based; sensitive work uses minimisation, retention limits and incident response.
Editors can stop, correct, roll back or decommission any automated workflow.
Every consequential statement must be reproducible by a qualified reviewer from the recorded evidence and method.
Primary law, official records and datasets lead. Secondary reporting adds context and is identified as such.
High-risk allegations, named entities and consequential forecasts require an independent second reviewer.
Confirmed fact, analytical assessment, scenario and unknown are never blended into one claim.
Material errors are corrected visibly, timestamped and propagated to affected client deliverables.
Only lawful sources are collected. Personal data is minimised and published only when a documented public-interest test is met. The evidence log distinguishes observation, attribution and analytical assessment; named subjects receive a meaningful right of reply when feasible.
Policy research, lobbying, representation for a foreign principal and government contracting are not interchangeable. Each engagement is classified before outreach, proposal or payment.
Advisory Board membership, bios, terms and conflicts.
Funding categories and material institutional sponsors.
Method versions, corrections and significant AI incidents.
Sponsored-research labels and editorial-firewall statements.