EgD-GCF-001 · The method
Eight sovereignty control domains, a jurisdictional register anchored to the EU AI
Act, EU Data Act, GDPR and DORA, four veto conditions, and a 16-point scoring sheet.
Read this first; everything else operationalises it.
Read the page ·
PDF
EgD-GCF-003 · Send to the vendor
Forty-one questions ordered by control domain, phrased so an evasive answer is
visible as an evasion. Part B explains the three patterns that recur in the replies:
the tier shift, the setting that is not a term, and the attestation with the wrong
scope.
PDF, 4 pages
Workbook · Score it
Four sheets. Score each domain 0, 1 or 2 from a dropdown, record the evidence, and
the result sheet computes the total, the verdict band, and applies the four veto
conditions as an override. Untouched, it reads “not yet scored” rather than a false
decline.
XLSX
EgD-GCF-004 · See it done
A completed assessment scored from public documentation, 2 August 2026. Total 11 of
16, no veto triggered. Shows what an evidenced 2, an asserted 1 and an absent 0 look
like against a real supplier — and why a default that changed silently costs a point.
PDF, 2 pages
EgD-GCF-005 · Hand to the client
One page, no jargon, for the sponsor who wants to know why two weeks of scoring is
worth it before a deal everyone already expects to approve.
PDF, 1 page
EgD-GCF-002 · Position it
For the conversation where a client says they already have a framework. BCG,
Gartner, Bain, McKinsey and NIST: five adoption frameworks and one governance
framework, none of which scores the counterparty.
Read the page ·
PDF
How to run it
- Frame it with the client. Send the one-pager to the sponsor before
the evaluation starts, so the exercise is understood as pre-signature leverage rather
than a compliance tax.
- Read the method. Eight domains, four veto conditions, and the rule
that a trust-centre page never scores above 1.
- Send the questionnaire while the vendor is still selling. Require a
written response citing clauses, not links.
- Score in the workbook from what came back. Evidence column is not
optional — a score without a citation is an opinion, and it will not survive the first
challenge from the vendor's account team.
- Deliver two things: the completed sheet, and a ranked list of the
clauses to change. The worked example shows what that output looks like.
The whole cycle is a fortnight of elapsed time and a day or two of effort. The output
is a negotiation agenda that exists while the buyer still has leverage.
Sign up as a practitioner
Signing up puts you on the public practitioner register: a short row saying you score
vendor proposals with a named, versioned instrument rather than freehand. It costs
nothing, there is no assessment to pass, and no fee moves in either direction.
It also records where you publish — LinkedIn, X, YouTube, SAPfans — so a piece of
work can be shared across all of them in one pass, and so a peer looking for someone who
runs this assessment can find you. Handles are optional; ask to be listed without tagging
and you are listed without handles.
Two ways in. The form is a GitHub issue — public, which is the point, since the
register has to be verifiable by the people reading it. If you do not hold a GitHub
account and do not want one, message Dany Theriault on LinkedIn with your name, firm,
region and the handles you want listed, and the row is added for you.
Practitioner register
EgD-REG-PRAC-001. Appended in the order received, generated from
the register file in the repository.
Listing is not certification or endorsement: EVEglyphDesign does not assess practitioners.
Removal is honoured on request, without discussion.
| # | Practitioner | Firm | Region | LinkedIn | X | YouTube | Tagging | Since |
|---|
| 001 | Dany Theriault | EVEglyph Design | Kansas, United States | — | — | — | author | 2026-08-02 |
No further entries yet. This file is the record; the public register page is generated from it.
Share it
Copy-ready text, so the kit travels as one link rather than five attachments. Attribution
is already in each block; leave it in. The canonical link is always
the practitioner
kit page rather than a direct PDF, so a reader arrives at the licence and the method
together.
LinkedIn — for a procurement, SAP or architecture audience
Most AI strategy frameworks tell you how to adopt. None of them score the vendor across the table.
EVEglyphDesign has published a buyer-side instrument that does: eight sovereignty control domains, four veto conditions, a 16-point scoring sheet, a 41-question vendor questionnaire, a fillable workbook, and a worked example scored against Microsoft 365 Copilot from public documentation — 11 of 16, proceed with conditions.
Free to use with your own clients, unmodified, with attribution.
https://eveglyphdesign.github.io/enterprise-grade-criteria/use/
#DataSovereignty #AIGovernance #Procurement #SAP #EUAIAct
X — short form
Six public AI frameworks tell you what to build. None score the vendor.
Eight sovereignty domains, four vetoes, a 16-point sheet, a 41-question supplier questionnaire, and a worked example against M365 Copilot (11/16).
Free to use with your clients, unmodified, attributed.
https://eveglyphdesign.github.io/enterprise-grade-criteria/use/
YouTube — description line for a walkthrough or a community stream
Kit used in this video — EVEglyphDesign Global Compliance Framework Assessment (EgD-GCF-001): the reference model, the vendor questionnaire, the scoring workbook and a worked example, free to use with your own clients under the practitioner licence.
https://eveglyphdesign.github.io/enterprise-grade-criteria/use/
SAPfans and community forums — plain text, no markup
If you are reviewing an AI proposal from an incumbent vendor, there is now a public scoring instrument for the sovereignty side of it: who holds title to derived data, whether your prompts train anything, whether you can get the derived layer back out, what happens on switching, where inference actually runs, what substrate sits underneath, what is logged, and what exit looks like.
Eight domains, scored 0/1/2, with four conditions that fail the proposal outright regardless of total. There is a questionnaire to send the supplier, a workbook to score in, and a worked example against Microsoft 365 Copilot done entirely from public documentation.
EVEglyphDesign Global Compliance Framework Assessment, EgD-GCF-001:
https://eveglyphdesign.github.io/enterprise-grade-criteria/use/
Practitioner licence
Licence ID EgD-LIC-PRAC-001 · Version 1.0 · Effective 2 August 2026
Scope
This licence covers the Global Compliance Framework kit published at eveglyphdesign.github.io/enterprise-grade-criteria/use/: the assessment method (EgD-GCF-001), the positioning note (EgD-GCF-002), the vendor questionnaire (EgD-GCF-003), the worked example (EgD-GCF-004), the client one-pager (EgD-GCF-005), and the scoring workbook.
You may
- Use these documents in paid client engagements. Advisory work, procurement support, vendor evaluations, board papers — commercial use is permitted and intended.
- Give copies to your clients, including the one-pager and the questionnaire.
- Fill in the scoring workbook and deliver the completed sheet to your client as your own work product. The scores you produce are yours; the instrument is ours.
- Quote and cite any part of the method in your own writing, with attribution.
You must
- Distribute the documents unmodified. No edits to the text, the domains, the scoring rule, or the veto conditions. The instrument's value is that two practitioners scoring the same proposal reach comparable numbers; a locally adjusted rubric destroys that.
- Retain attribution. Each document carries its ID, the EVEglyphDesign mark, and the copyright line. These stay. Where you reference the method in a deliverable of your own, name it: EVEglyphDesign Global Compliance Framework Assessment, EgD-GCF-001, and link to the public surface.
- Present it as decision support, not legal advice, in the same terms the documents themselves use.
You may not
- Rebrand. Removing the EVEglyphDesign mark, replacing it with your own, or presenting the method as your firm's proprietary framework is outside this licence.
- Fork and adapt. Derivative rubrics, renamed domains, altered scoring bands, and "based on" variants are not permitted without written agreement.
- Resell the instrument itself. You may charge for your work; you may not charge for the documents as a product, license them onward, or include them in a paid template library.
- Publish client scores under this framework as a register or league table. There is no shared score repository, and a score produced under this method is a private finding between you and your client. Anonymised aggregate observations in your own writing are fine; naming vendors and scores in a public ranking is not.
Warranty and liability
Provided as is, without warranty. The framework is a structured way of asking questions; it does not guarantee that every material risk in a vendor proposal will be found, and it is not a substitute for legal review. EVEglyphDesign accepts no liability for decisions taken in reliance on it.
Changes and termination
Documents are versioned and dated. Superseded versions remain valid for engagements already under way. This licence may be revoked for a specific party in the event of a breach of the "may not" clauses above; it is not revoked retroactively for work already delivered in good faith.
Asking for more
Rebranding, adaptation, embedding in a productised offering, or a co-branded arrangement are all discussable. Raise an issue on the repository.