Exhibit C · Governed AI
Compliance tooling for the professional standard on responsible use of AI in surveying practice, in force since 9 March 2026.
Since 9 March 2026, RICS members and regulated firms whose AI use has a material impact on the delivery of surveying services must be able to show four things: what AI they use, that a named qualified surveyor made a written decision about the reliability of AI outputs, that clients were told in the Terms of Engagement, and that AI procurement was diligenced.
That is not a modelling problem. It is a records problem, and when I looked there was no tooling for it at all.
No database, no SaaS, no vendor holding records a firm must retain for years. Git already provides append-only history, authorship and timestamps, which is what an audit trail is. A regulator-ready evidence pack then becomes a render of the repository, with the commit log as the evidence timeline.
Commands capture each record, the repository stores them, and the validator refuses to let an incomplete set become a document anyone could rely on.
oversight check validates every record and exits non-zero on failure, so it runs in CI or as a pre-commit hook. Every failure cites the obligation it would breach:
It catches unnamed responsible surveyors, external systems without due diligence, diligence gone stale past twelve months, overdue lifecycle reviews, unsigned or malformed decision records, records referencing unregistered systems, engagements that used AI with no client disclosure, and template placeholders left sitting in a record.
This is the whole point. If a pack can always be produced, its existence proves nothing. Because it cannot, a pack is itself evidence that the records were coherent at the moment it was generated.
A reliability decision can be bound to the SHA-256 of the exact output reviewed, so the record provably covers that output and no other. Without it, a decision record is an assertion that some review happened, some time, about something.
The published RICS text is authoritative and this tool is not it. Obligation text is deliberately paraphrased and no clause numbers are fabricated, so nobody can mistake independent tooling for the standard itself.