Technology Policy & Regulatory Strategy
Operator-grade regulatory strategy. CYBAIR carries the framework and evidence work for the workloads in scope; AIR frames the portfolio.
Why this engagement exists
AI, data, and technology regulation is fragmenting faster than compliance programs can adapt. Organizations over-index on one framework or wait for clarity that never arrives — while market access, authorization, and capital all gate on regimes that are already in force.
What it looks like in your organization
- Compliance effort is scattered across frameworks with no pathway connecting them.
- Teams wait for regulatory clarity instead of building against current obligations.
- Evidence for regulators is assembled manually when a request lands.
- Product and market timing decisions ignore the policy environment entirely.
What we do and how it works
We design the pathway, not just the gap list: AIR frames the portfolio so the strategy covers what actually runs, CYBAIR on the nominated workloads produces the framework and evidence work, and policy scenario analysis informs product and market timing when regimes shift.
The engagement includes
- Regime scoping: the frameworks that actually gate market, authorization, or capital
- AIR portfolio framing and CYBAIR workload evidence work
- Compliance pathway design across regimes
- Evidence and attestation strategy generated from the workloads
- Policy scenario analysis for product and market timing
What you take away
Every deliverable is named, formatted, and tied to the outcome it enables. Nothing ships as a deck with no use.
Regulatory strategy and compliance pathway
Strategy documentThe pathway across the regimes that bind you — sequenced, resourced, and tied to how the portfolio actually runs.
Compliance becomes a designed pathway instead of scattered gap lists.
Framework crosswalk
Crosswalk reportObligations mapped across regimes so one evidence base serves multiple requirements.
The organization stops doing duplicate work per framework.
Evidence and attestation strategy
Strategy documentWhat auditors and regulators will accept — generated from the workloads through CYBAIR, not assembled later.
Regulatory and audit requests are answered from prepared evidence.
Policy scenario analysis
Scenario analysisHow pending and plausible regime shifts affect product and market timing, with response options.
Product and market decisions anticipate the policy environment instead of reacting to it.
How this engagement runs
Name the regimes that bind you
Week 1Not every framework — the ones that actually gate market, authorization, or capital. Scope is locked before any analysis starts.
The engagement targets the regimes that matter commercially, not the loudest ones.
Ground it in systems
Weeks 1–2AIR frames the portfolio; CYBAIR profiles the workloads that must produce evidence. The pathway maps to how things run.
Regulatory strategy is anchored to the systems that carry the obligations.
Write the evidence strategy
Weeks 2–4Evidence and attestation are designed from the workloads — what auditors and regulators will accept, generated rather than assembled.
A defensible evidence base that serves every regime in scope.
Test the policy futures
Weeks 4–5Policy scenarios inform product and market timing when the regime shifts, closed with a readout and handoff.
Leadership can time products and markets against the policy environment.
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.
The organization or portfolio profiled against the AIR readiness ontology, sized by headcount and portfolio breadth.
The size of the organization being assessed: people, portfolios, and the systems that matter. A 200-person shop profiles at the Small band; a 10,000-person multi-portfolio enterprise profiles at Large or Extra-large.
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
Both. Policy offices, GC/compliance, and product leaders navigating AI and tech regulation all use the output — the pathway, the evidence strategy, and the timing analysis.
Ready to brief us on the Technology Policy & Regulatory Strategy?
We choose who we work with and confirm scope, capacity, and final pricing in the briefing.