AI Vendor Risk Assessment
CYBAIR on the third-party AI systems in your supply chain. Each vendor AI workload is a CYBAIR unit — plus the engagement to turn scores into a risk and attestation plan.
Why this engagement exists
Third-party AI is now inside core workflows, and vendor questionnaires do not produce workload-level posture or evidence an auditor will accept. Organizations inherit the risk posture of every vendor AI system that touches their data, customers, or mission — without ever measuring it.
What it looks like in your organization
- Vendor AI risk is “managed” through questionnaires and SOC 2 reports that never mention the actual workloads.
- No one can say which third-party AI systems create unacceptable residual risk.
- Procurement has no attestation language or posture bar to put in contracts.
- An incident at a vendor becomes your incident, with no prior assessment to point to.
What we do and how it works
Each vendor AI workload that touches your data, customers, or mission is a CYBAIR unit at $5,000 — scored with the same engine as first-party workloads, compliance and evidence included. The engagement turns those scores into a third-party risk map, an evidence and attestation strategy, and a prioritized remediation plan procurement can actually use.
The engagement includes
- Vendor AI inventory: the systems that actually touch your data, customers, or mission
- CYBAIR posture scoring per vendor workload
- Third-party risk exposure mapping
- Vendor evidence and attestation strategy
- Attestation language and remediation sequence for procurement
What you take away
Every deliverable is named, formatted, and tied to the outcome it enables. Nothing ships as a deck with no use.
Vendor AI posture scores
ScorecardCYBAIR posture per vendor AI workload — the same engine, evidence, and compliance crosswalk as first-party work.
Vendor risk is measured at workload level, not asserted by questionnaire.
Third-party risk exposure map
Risk mapWhich vendors create unacceptable residual risk, why, and where the exposure concentrates.
You can rank, challenge, or exit vendors based on measured posture.
Vendor evidence and attestation strategy
Strategy documentThe evidence and attestation posture you should demand from vendors, and how to verify it.
Vendor assurance becomes contractual and verifiable instead of trust-based.
Prioritized vendor-risk remediation plan
Remediation planSequenced actions with attestation language procurement can put into contracts and renewals.
Procurement and security move together with a concrete bar and sequence.
How this engagement runs
Inventory vendor AI
Week 1We identify the third-party AI systems that actually touch your data, customers, or mission. Each one is a CYBAIR unit; the count is confirmed before scoring.
A confirmed scope of which vendor workloads are in play.
Score posture
Weeks 1–2The same CYBAIR engine as first-party workloads: posture, compliance, and evidence per vendor workload.
Measured posture for every vendor AI workload in scope.
Map exposure
Weeks 2–3We map which vendors create unacceptable residual risk and why — concentration, criticality, and substitutability.
A ranked view of vendor risk that supports real decisions.
Set the bar
Weeks 3–4Attestation language and a remediation sequence procurement can use in contracts and renewals, closed with a readout.
Vendor risk governance has a bar, a sequence, and contract-ready language.
How the fee is built
The engagement fee moves on three multipliers — sensitivity, involvement, and organization type — and the platform units the work consumes are their own lines. Nothing is hidden inside a flat number.
Sensitivity
×0.90 – ×1.30 on the engagement feeSensitivity sets the handling envelope around the whole engagement: how data moves, where evidence lives, who can touch it, and what containment we must maintain. Higher sensitivity means cleared handling, segregated evidence, and slower, more deliberate operations — real cost that a flat fee would hide.
Open information. Standard handling, no containment overhead.
Proprietary business information. NDA-grade handling and controlled evidence storage.
Compliance-bound data. Framework controls and audit-ready evidence handling shape the work.
Defense-grade pathways. Cleared handling, boundary containment, and evidence segregation inside your perimeter.
Involvement
×0.85 – ×1.35 on the engagement feeInvolvement is how much Multipolar operator time is on the hook. Counsel at checkpoints is a different commitment than embedded delivery inside your team, your systems, and your cadence. The multiplier tracks senior hours actually committed — not a markup.
We advise and interpret; your team executes. Senior counsel at defined checkpoints.
We run the engagement end to end, with your stakeholders at the decision points.
Embedded delivery. Our operators work inside your team until the outcome is actually in place.
Organization type
×0.85 – ×1.25 on the engagement feeThe same technical work lands differently depending on who is buying it. Federal and defense engagements carry procurement, compliance, security review, and stakeholder alignment that a mid-market engagement does not. The multiplier prices the coordination and accountability surface, not the analysis.
Fewer stakeholders, faster decisions, lighter coordination overhead.
The baseline: standard commercial engagement surface.
Public-sector procurement and multi-agency stakeholder surface.
Investment-platform cadence: deal-driven timelines and IC audiences.
Joint-delivery and enablement motions with partner delivery teams.
Assurance functions: evidence standards and underwriting audiences.
Federal procurement, compliance crosswalks, and multi-office alignment.
Mission-critical review, security handling, and acquisition-process alignment.
Scope & scale of platform units
The largest component of most totalsEvery engagement consumes platform units — CYBAIR workloads, AIR organization bands, GENOMIA twins, WINS scenarios, SiliconAIR systems. Units track your estate, not our appetite for flat pricing: an 8-workload assessment and a 50-workload assessment are different engagements and are priced as such. You set the scope in the configurator; the total moves with it, and nothing is quietly under-scoped to fit a number.
Simulation compute
Estimated until configured · billed on actualsWINS simulations carry real compute costs that scale with scenario count, branching depth, and campaign length. A focused single-scenario game and a sustained multi-agent campaign are orders of magnitude apart. Facilitation and after-action are in the fee; compute is estimated once the game is configured, then billed on actuals — you pay for what actually runs, never a padded average.
Platform units in this engagement
Units track your estate, not our appetite for flat pricing. You set the scope; the total moves with it. Each unit below is consumed by this engagement and billed as its own line.
Each model, RAG pipeline, or agentic workflow you nominate for posture, compliance, evidence, and attestation.
The number of AI workloads you put in scope. Minimum one. You choose the estate to assess — the count is yours to set, and we do not flatten ten workloads and fifty into the same fee.
What the engagement fee covers
- Scoping, workshops, and interpretation
- Every deliverable listed on this page
- Cross-framework mapping where the package includes compliance
- Executive translation — board, program-office, or IC language
- Handoff and a defensible next-step recommendation
What it does not cover
- Platform units consumed by the work (shown as their own lines)
- WINS simulation compute (estimated, then billed on actuals)
Frequently asked questions
No. It is CYBAIR on the vendor AI workloads in scope, plus an engagement that turns scores into a risk and attestation plan. Questionnaires are inputs at best.
Ready to brief us on the AI Vendor Risk Assessment?
We choose who we work with and confirm scope, capacity, and final pricing in the briefing.