Skip to content

Independent control, explained

What is vendor-neutral AI governance?

Vendor-neutral AI governance means the authority over what AI agents may do sits outside any single model, agent, framework or vendor. The same rules apply to every agent, whoever built it. The component that proposes an action is not the component that decides on it. Changing AI vendors does not change the controls.

AI Acts. Crelis Decides. · Runtime authorization for AI agents

The blue clay Crelis robot stands on its own glowing platform holding a level balance scale, apart from three cream clay agents in different coloured caps and a stack of system blocks.
Principle
Who proposes does not decide
Independent of
Model, agent, framework and vendor
Scope
Actions that matter, not every action
Outcome
Allow, require human approval, escalate, or block

Why it exists

Proposing an action is not the same as deciding on it

An AI agent proposes actions. That is its job. Whether a consequential action should go ahead is a separate question, and it may need a separate owner.

Many companies begin with one agent and the controls that come with it. Those controls are useful, and they are a sound place to start. As agents from more vendors arrive, each brings its own controls. The rules a company cares about most may then need one home that does not depend on any single vendor.

This page is about where the decision sits. How each action is decided is explained on the runtime authorization page.

Proposing an action and deciding on it are two different jobs.

How it differs

Each component looks at something different

Each component is useful, and they can run side by side. Vendor-neutral governance is about where the final decision on a consequential action sits.

Model safeguards

What a model says

With the model

Platform-native controls

The agents on one platform

With the agent platform

Agent security

How an agent behaves

Around the agent

Orchestration

The next step in the work

With the workflow

Vendor-neutral governance

What any agent tries to do, whoever built it

Independent of all of them

Orchestration decides what an agent does next. Independent authority decides whether it may.

What independence means

What the rules do not depend on

Vendor-neutral governance does not replace the controls a vendor provides. It keeps the final decision on consequential actions in one place, under the company's own rules.

  1. The model

    The rules look at what an agent tries to do, not the model inside.

  2. The agent and framework

    Agents built in different ways are held to the same rules.

  3. The vendor

    Changing an AI vendor does not change the controls.

What regulators point to

Controls at the moment an agent acts

We publish an independent, primary-sourced reference mapping SAFR, NIST AI RMF and EU AI Act requirements to controls at AI-agent execution time. It cites the source documents and implies no endorsement.

If you are evaluating

Questions to ask about independence

These are questions, not answers. They apply to any vendor, any platform and any team that builds its own controls.

  1. 01Is the component that decides separate from the component that proposes the action?
  2. 02Does the same control cover agents built on different models and vendors?
  3. 03If we change our model or agent vendor, do our rules and records stay in place?
  4. 04Are the rules and thresholds ours to set?
  5. 05Can a past decision be shown later without relying on the agent that asked?

FAQ

Vendor-neutral governance, in short answers

The questions people ask about independent authority over AI agents.

What is vendor-neutral AI governance?

Vendor-neutral AI governance means the authority over what AI agents may do sits outside any single model, agent, framework or vendor. The same rules apply to every agent, whoever built it. The component that proposes an action is not the component that decides on it. Changing AI vendors does not change the controls.

Why might authority over AI agent actions need to be independent of the AI vendor?

So that the one proposing an action is not also the one approving it. For consequential actions, that separation may matter more as a company runs agents from several vendors. An independent authority keeps the final decision in one place, outside any single vendor.

Is vendor-neutral AI governance the same as vendor-agnostic agent governance?

Yes. Both mean the rules do not depend on who supplied the agent. Model-agnostic AI agent controls are narrower. They mean the rules do not depend on which model sits behind the agent. All three describe controls that are independent of what they govern.

Does vendor-neutral governance replace the controls built into an AI platform?

No. Platform-native controls and agent security tools are appropriate and complementary, and they stay in place. Vendor-neutral governance adds one independent place where the final decision on a consequential action is made and recorded.

Is vendor-neutral governance the same as orchestration?

No. Orchestration plans the work: it picks the next step and the tool to use. An independent authority does not plan or direct agents. It decides whether a proposed action may happen: allow, require human approval, escalate, or block. The two do different jobs and can sit side by side.

What happens to our controls if we switch AI vendors?

They stay the same. With vendor-neutral governance, the rules look at what an agent tries to do, not at the model or vendor behind it. A new agent is held to the same rules as the one it replaced.

Which AI models and agents does GREENLIGHT work with?

Any agent whose consequential actions you route through Crelis, model- and vendor-neutral by design. Crelis evaluates what an agent tries to do, not how the model works inside, so switching AI vendors doesn’t change your controls. Tested so far with the agents and SDKs running in our hosted pilot environment; no vendor is certified or endorsed.

Give your agents a green light — safely.

Start in shadow mode on non-production traffic. See every decision GREENLIGHT would have made — before you let it make one.