Decision Intelligence for Energy
Clarity at the point of decision, for the high-stakes commercial decisions of selling into oil & gas.
We help technology, equipment, and software companies align their product, positioning, and go-to-market strategy with how the oil & gas industry actually operates, from where your solution fits in the value chain to an executable plan that generates traction.
Six proof cases across energy go-to-market and AI governance. Read the case studies →
Specialist service: AI decision governance. When an AI decision is challenged, can you prove who authorized it?
We surface unsanctioned AI already running inside your organization, and produce the defensible record regulators are about to ask for.
Tamboran Resources — 60 days from invisible to #1 across 4 brand-basin queries on 6 LLMs. The first measured proof case for Digital Information Governance®.
Read the case study →/ Stakes by the numbers
Why now. In four numbers.
Sourced figures from regulators, vendor primary research, and a published energy-sector case study. The exposure is concrete; the calendar is real.
/01 Texas penalty
$200K/violation
Plus $40K/day continuing under TRAIGA. AG complaint portal opens Sept 1.
Source: Texas HB 149 (TRAIGA) final bill text — capitol.texas.gov
/02 EHS+ shadow AI
95%
Of EHS+ teams use AI tools that have not been formally approved by their organizations.
Source: Cority — State of EHS+ Insights, 2025
/03 Connected ops · AI exposure
$1M/day
What a single decision miss costs in connected oil & gas — the loss surface AI is now making calls inside.
Source: Ericsson — private 5G in oil and gas, April 2025 (ericsson.com/en/blog)
/04 Tamboran case
+100% / 60d
Tamboran AI brand visibility doubled in 60 days; 6 LLMs corrected from misrepresenting the operator.
Source: ModalPoint case study, Tamboran Resources (NYSE/ASX: TBN), Feb–Apr 2026
/ Where we sit in your stack
AI is the unowned intersection.
Energy and infrastructure operators have separately owned IT (information) and OT (operations) for thirty years. AI is the decision substrate that now lives in the overlap — and that overlap is the lane no one inside most operators formally owns yet.
Operators don’t have a governance problem yet. They have a who-owns-what problem — and AI is the unowned overlap.
Map your phase →Where AI governance vendors actually compete — and where they don't.
Detection-after-the-fact inside one hyperscaler stack is crowded. Authorization-before-the-call across vendors is the lane no one else has reached.
The four layers of agent governance.
Most vendors stop at Detect. ModalPoint adds the Authorize and Attest layers — the ones that survive a regulator, board, or counsel inquiry.
Detect
Which agents are running. Where. Owned by whom. Surface unsanctioned use.
All vendorsAuthorize
Pre-bind every regulated decision to a policy basis and a named human. Before the model runs.
ModalPointAttest
Capture the evidence chain — prompt, retrieval, reasoning, sign-off — in defensible schema.
ModalPointAudit
Export the binder. Single artifact maps to TRAIGA, EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001.
Audit firmsAuthorize before. Not detect after.
Most AI governance vendors are forensic. They tell you what already broke. ModalPoint registers the decision, the policy, and the human accountable — before the model runs.
Every regulated decision, accountable.
Our Decision Registry captures the authorization layer that audit-defensible AI requires: who approved this decision, against what policy, on what model, and with what classification. Vendor-neutral. Substrate-neutral.
When a regulator, board, or legal team asks “why did your AI do this” — the answer is one query away.
See the full framework See a sample audit reportThree things every other AI governance vendor gets wrong.
We've sat across the table from the people who eventually have to defend the decision. The wedge is operational, not academic.
Shippable artifacts.
We build the deliverables that satisfy documentation requirements and hold up under audit — not just legal interpretations.
~70% obligation overlap.
TRAIGA, EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001 obligations overlap. Built correctly, a single governance binder satisfies all four.
For operators.
A decade helping energy companies make high-stakes decisions in complex, regulated markets. The discipline carries over directly to AI governance.
Binders, Not Memos.
We build the shippable artifacts that invoke safe harbors, satisfy documentation requirements, and hold up under audit — not just legal interpretations.
One Binder, Four Frameworks.
Approximately 70% of TRAIGA, EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, and ISO 42001 obligations overlap. Built correctly, a single governance binder satisfies all four.
Built by Operators.
A decade helping energy companies make high-stakes commercial decisions in complex, regulated markets. The discipline carries over directly to AI governance.
Four pillars of Digital Information Governance®.
DIG® is our registered operating framework for AI accountability. Every audit-defensible AI decision maps to one of these pillars — or it can't survive a regulatory inquiry.
Information Provenance
Where the data came from, who is allowed to use it, and what its license terms permit. The first thing a regulator asks.
Decision Traceability
Which inputs, models, and policies produced a given decision — reproducible from the registry record, not reconstructed after the fact.
Representation Integrity
How AI-generated outputs are labeled, attributed, and disclosed when they enter regulated workflows or external communications.
Audit Readiness
Governing systems, policies, and decision registries that satisfy TRAIGA, EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, and ISO 42001 in a single binder.
Start where the friction is lowest.
Most operators begin with the diagnostic. The tier you need depends on what the assessment surfaces and what regulatory pressure you're already facing.
Six things energy operators ask first.
Short answers. The full reasoning lives in the framework pillars and the 5-day Assessment scoping call.
Q01Does TRAIGA actually apply to upstream / midstream operations?
Yes — if your AI-influenced decisions touch any of the protected categories (employment, credit, housing, healthcare, public benefits, education, criminal justice). For energy operators that mostly shows up in workforce decisions (hiring, scheduling, performance), credit/insurance scoring on contractors and JV partners, and any safety-critical AI in production environments. (Subchapter E doesn’t explicitly enumerate OT/SCADA process-control AI; we treat safety-critical AI as in-scope under the prudent-operator interpretation, pending AG guidance.) The Texas AG complaint portal opens September 1, 2026.
The cure window is short and the substantial-compliance defense (Sec. 552.105) is the only off-ramp. Read the federal-floor pillar →
Q02We have JV partners or assets in Europe. Does the EU AI Act actually reach us?
Article 2 territorial scope is broad. If you have EU customers, EU offices, EU data flows, or EU joint-venture partners whose decisions you touch with your AI, you're in scope whether or not your headcount is in Europe. High-risk obligations activate August 2, 2026. That includes Annex IV technical documentation and Article 14 human oversight.
The Cross-Border Governance Binder (Tier 2) is the engagement built specifically for this. See the binder structure →
Q03How does this work alongside our existing Cority / EHS management system?
Cority and similar EHS·Q platforms are excellent at structured incident, audit, and compliance workflows. They were not built for the AI-decision authorization layer that TRAIGA, the EU AI Act, and NIST AI RMF now require. ModalPoint sits next to your EHS/QMS, not on top of it. The Decision Registry feeds into existing audit trails. We don't ask you to rip and replace.
Cority's own 2025 research found 95% of EHS+ teams already use unapproved AI tools. The governance gap is real even where the EHS layer is mature.
Q04What does the 5-day Readiness Assessment actually deliver?
One-page executive gap report (DIG® pillars vs. four regulatory regimes), AI System Inventory template scoped to your environment, prioritized fix list ranked by exposure and time-to-remediate, one-hour readout with your executive team, and an honest written recommendation about whether Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, or just the Tier 0 Shadow AI Assessment is the right next step.
Fixed scope. Fixed fee ($5,000). Five working days from kickoff. See the day-by-day breakdown →
Q05What's the IT/OT/AI seam and why does it matter for our control rooms?
Most energy operators have clean separation between IT (corporate systems) and OT (process control, SCADA, ESD). AI is now arriving in both lanes — predictive maintenance models reading from OT historians, copilots writing in IT systems — and most governance frameworks were drafted before that crossover existed. The "seam" is where an AI recommendation in IT influences an OT decision (or vice versa) without a clear authorization handoff.
This is the highest-risk surface for regulated operators because failure modes can be safety-impacting. We treat it as a distinct governance domain inside DIG®.
Q06Do we actually have to name individuals as "decision authorizers"?
For decisions classified as REGULATED in your Decision Registry — yes. The TRAIGA substantial-compliance defense, EU AI Act Article 14 human oversight, and NIST AI RMF all assume a named accountable human in the loop. "The model decided" is not a defense in any of those regimes.
For non-regulated decisions, role-level authorization is sufficient. The Decision Registry separates the two so you're not over-papering low-stakes work.
THREE WAYS TO WORK WITH US
Texas Ready by September
For Texas operators. A 4-6 week program delivering NIST AI RMF mapping, AI system inventory, and a TRAIGA cure playbook.
Cross-Border Binder
For EU + Texas operators or PE multi-portfolio governance. An 8-12 week program delivering all nine DIG® artifacts across TRAIGA, EU AI Act, NIST, and ISO 42001.
Governance-as-a-Service
For ongoing portfolio-level governance. A monthly retainer maintaining your binder as AI, regulation, and workflows evolve.
TEXAS READY BY SEPTEMBER
Substantial-compliance posture before the Texas AG complaint portal goes live September 1, 2026.
- NIST AI RMF substantial-compliance mapping + complete AI system inventory
- Intent documentation packets + red-team testing protocols
- TRAIGA cure playbook and safe-harbor artifacts
CROSS-BORDER GOVERNANCE BINDER
For operators with any EU customer, joint venture, or AI output consumed in the Union. One binder, four frameworks.
- EU AI Act Annex IV technical file + NIST-structured core
- FRIA + DPIA package + post-market monitoring plan
- Vendor due diligence kit + serious incident reporting SOP
GOVERNANCE-AS-A-SERVICE
A monthly retainer that maintains your binder as AI, regulation, and your workflows evolve. Drift monitoring, regulatory watch, annual re-certification support, and incident response standby — for operators with continuous exposure.
- Drift monitoring + regulatory watch
- Annual re-certification support
- Incident response standby
PROOF
Certified AI Auditor (CAIA). Independently certified to audit AI decision systems, with active participation in the Texas HB 149 / TRAIGA governance process. Digital Information Governance® — U.S. trademark (USPTO Reg. 99559923). Three provisional patents filed in the AI decision governance space. Certified AI Auditor (CAIA). 25+ years of energy commercialization advisory through EWR Digital. Tamboran Resources — named energy-sector engagement under the DIG® framework (read the case study). Goldman Sachs 10,000 Small Businesses graduate (April 2026). OTC 2026 panelist on AI governance for energy operators.
- Certified AI Auditor (CAIA) + DIG® U.S. trademark
- Three provisional AI governance patents
- 25+ years of regulated-industries advisory lineage
- Tamboran Resources energy-sector proof case (DIG® framework)
- Goldman 10KSB graduate (Apr 2026) + OTC 2026 panelist (May 2026)
Find what's already running inside your organization.
Pillar reading.
Three published deep-dives covering the framework, the federal preemption question, and the 5-day diagnostic. Each is the load-bearing artifact behind a different conversation.
What is Digital Information Governance®?
The four pillars and how DIG® maps to TRAIGA, the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, and ISO 42001 — with one underlying management system that satisfies ~70% of all four.
Read the pillarTRAIGA doesn't preempt federal civil rights law.
Why Sec. 552.056(c)'s intent standard doesn't cover Title VII, ECOA, FHA, ADA, or Section 1557 — and what to build instead so the binder holds in either court.
Read the pillar5-Day Governance Readiness Assessment.
Five working days. One-page exec gap report, prioritized fix list, recommended engagement tier. The honest answer about what to build before September 1.
Start the assessment/ Who you're engaging with
A Houston-based AI decision governance practice.
/ Credentials & affiliations
Compliance or legal team with specific questions? Send them in writing →