MAP Research Programme | Hillary Elizabeth Segeren | Ontario, Canada

I help you understand
what your AI is actually doing.

Most AI governance is written at the policy level - guidelines, principles, design intent. None of that tells you what your system does in a real interaction with a real person.

I work at the interaction level - where authority actually shifts, where meaning gets displaced, and where governance exposure can appear before anyone has named it. I read the transcript, name what I find, and explain what it means for your platform, your users, and your risk posture. Then I help you decide what should change.

Boundary: MAP consultation is interaction-level governance review. It is not legal advice, clinical advice, compliance certification, or a substitute for counsel, regulators, clinicians, or institutional decision-makers.
What I actually do

Interaction-level governance review

01
I look at what your AI is doing, not what you intended it to do
Design documents and safety guidelines tell you what a system is supposed to do. I look at what it actually does - turn by turn, in real interactions - and name what I find. That gap between intent and behaviour is where governance risk often lives.
02
I translate that into language your board, your funders, and your lawyers can use
Audit findings don't help you if they sit in a technical report nobody reads. I write the governance brief, the investor positioning, the school board document, the remediation spec. The people who need to act on it get something they can act on.
03
I tell you where regulation is going before it arrives
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is actively developing standards that may shape national legislation and procurement expectations. MFIPPA-compliant is not the same as CRC-aligned. I help you understand the difference and prepare before the pressure lands.
04
I give you a governance story stronger than self-assessment
Most AI governance conversations still lean on design claims, policy language, and self-assessment. Interaction-level audit evidence is different: it shows what happened in the record. That window is open. I help you use it responsibly.
05
I work from the interaction record - no model access required
The MAP audit methodology operates from the conversation transcript. I don't need your weights, your training data, or your internal architecture. That means findings can be checked against the same preserved record - which is exactly what makes them useful to external stakeholders.
Who I work with

Built for teams with real exposure

EdTech Platforms
Platforms in K-12 or post-secondary contexts preparing for school board procurement, regulatory review, or investor due diligence - and platforms that need to know what their system is doing to students before it becomes a problem.
AI Developers
Teams building consumer or enterprise AI who want independent evidence of where their system holds governance boundaries - and where it does not - before a journalist, regulator, or plaintiff finds it first.
Legal Teams
Defence counsel, civil litigants, or institutional reviewers who need to know whether an AI-mediated exchange produced reliable statements - or whether the interaction conditions undermine what the institution is trying to rely on.
Funders and Boards
Investors, insurers, and institutional decision-makers who need documented governance evidence as part of due diligence - not assurances, not design documents, but audit findings from real interactions.
How an engagement works

From discovery to usable evidence

Discovery
We talk - free, 30 to 45 minutes
You tell me what you're building, what you're worried about, or what situation you're in. I tell you what I see and whether I can help. No pitch, no obligation. If it's not the right fit I'll tell you that too.
Assessment
I look at the actual interactions
I run MAP audit instruments on your interaction records - the real conversations your system is having with real users. I identify governance failures, classify the harm where present, and document the finding against the preserved record.
Delivery
You get something you can use
Depending on the engagement, that's an audit report, a governance brief, a board document, a remediation specification, or a deployment roadmap. Whatever the stakeholder who needs to act on this requires - that's what I write.
Ongoing
I stay in it if you need me to
Some engagements end at delivery. Others continue - protocol integration, before/after comparison, pilot design, regulatory positioning as the landscape shifts. I'm available as a retained advisor for platforms that want governance built in, not bolted on.
Engagement types

Pricing and engagement options

The public MAP tool is transparent by design. You can run it yourself. Paid consultation is for the parts a tool cannot reliably do alone: choosing the right transcript, reading the findings in context, separating material risk from noise, and turning the result into a decision-ready memo or remediation plan.

What you are paying for
The tool gives you a report. I provide expert interpretation, scope control, severity judgment, product-context analysis, adversarial test design, board/procurement language, and concrete recommendations for what should change.
Discovery Call
A focused conversation to assess fit and scope. You leave with a clear picture of what a MAP engagement would look like for your specific situation and what it would produce.
  • Scope and fit assessment
  • Plain-language explanation of methodology
  • Honest recommendation on next steps
Book discovery ->
Free
Rapid Risk Scan
I review one AI interaction, share link, product flow, or transcript and identify the highest-risk authority transfer. This is for founders, schools, researchers, or teams who need a fast read on whether a finding is material and what to test next.
  • One scoped interaction or product flow reviewed
  • Highest-risk finding identified and explained
  • Severity read with evidence excerpt
  • Short advisory memo with recommended next step
Contact for scan ->
From $750 CADFast scoped review
Full MAP Audit
I conduct a scoped interaction-level audit using MAP, interpret the findings against your product context, remove noise, identify severity and carry-forward risk, and provide a decision-ready report with remediation priorities. No model access required. Findings are independently verifiable.
  • ST-01 governance finding - AIF status, first breach, control failures, authority ratio, remediation spec
  • ST-02 harm classification - five-area impact assessment and overall severity
  • ST-03 identity and framing review where relevant
  • Plain-language executive summary
  • Noise removal, context interpretation, and remediation priorities
Contact for audit ->
From $2,500 CADComplete scoped audit
Product Governance Review
A broader review for AI products moving toward schools, youth, health, workplace, public service, or customer-facing deployment. I combine audit findings with the documents you need to act on them: rights mapping, compliance gap analysis, investor or procurement positioning, and a remediation specification your team can implement.
  • Audit of sample interactions or high-risk workflows
  • Rights mapping - UN CRC, MFIPPA, FERPA, or applicable framework
  • Compliance gap analysis against your platform claims
  • Remediation specification
  • Board, investor, or school board positioning document
Contact for review ->
From $5,000 CADProduct-level review
Implementation Advisory
Ongoing support for teams that need governance built into the product, not attached after launch. This can include prompt gates, product language, policy docs, re-testing, launch readiness, pilot design, and before/after comparison.
  • Baseline audit before changes
  • ANCHOR protocol integration specification
  • Before and after comparison
  • Policy, interface, and prompt-language review
  • Retained advisory as product and regulation develop
Contact for advisory ->
From $1,500 CAD/moRetained support
Forensic Review
Interaction-level forensic analysis for legal proceedings. Before an institution relies on an AI-mediated exchange as evidence - confession, statement, institutional decision - I assess whether the interaction conditions support that reliance or undermine it.
  • Meaning integrity assessment
  • Reliability risk classification
  • Vulnerability context documentation
  • Authority contamination analysis
  • Exculpatory resistance record
  • Decision impact statement
Contact for forensic ->
Contact for scope
Work already done

Evidence from preserved records

Examples below are interaction-level audit or advisory work from preserved records. Named companies and systems are referenced for context only; MAP is not affiliated with or endorsed by them unless explicitly stated.

EdTech | Live Platform Audit
Canadian K-12 AI Teaching Assistant - Ontario
Advisory engagement on a deployed Ontario EdTech platform serving classroom teachers. Governance brief, CRC rights mapping, MFIPPA gap analysis, investor positioning, four-stage school deployment roadmap, and red-team findings - seven deliverables across four service categories, built from the interaction record.
AUDIT FINDING: HIGH | AIF PRESENT
SENSE OF SELF: CRITICAL
DELIVERABLES: 7 across 4 service categories
Consumer Platform | Independent Audit
Brainly - Student Homework AI
Independent audit of a student-facing AI interaction. The audit found the system held 87.5% of the thinking authority across the submitted record and treated a child's distress signal as a request for more content delivery.
AUDIT FINDING: CRITICAL | DAC PRESENT
CHILD THINKING AUTHORITY: 12.5%
SYSTEM THINKING AUTHORITY: 87.5%
Cross-System | Comparative Audit
ANCHOR Stress Testing - Four Systems
Governed and ungoverned pairs produced across Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, and DeepSeek using a medical ambiguity prompt and a business readiness prompt. Clean governed pairs documented. PP-RAC confirmed in ungoverned conditions across all four systems.
FINDING: CLEAN GOVERNED PAIRS PRODUCED
PP-RAC CONFIRMED UNGOVERNED
CASE STUDY MATERIAL: CCA SERIES
Forensic review

When the transcript becomes evidence

New instrument | 2026
Before your institution relies on it - read the transcript.
If an AI-mediated exchange will be used to support a confession, plea, charge, conviction, disciplinary finding, detention decision, risk classification, or other adverse institutional outcome, that transcript should be assessed before the institution acts on it. Was the subject's meaning preserved, or did authority language replace it? Was the statement voluntary, or was it shaped by conditions the subject could not see? MAP's forensic review instrument answers those questions from the interaction record, without requiring access to the model or the system architecture.
Published framework

Framework, credentials, and contact

"The case study is alarming and fascinating in a horrible way. I'm surprised this hasn't been named before."
Professor John Barnden, Emeritus Professor of AI, University of Birmingham
ORCID OSF Google Scholar Zenodo SSRN PhilPeople Website
Let's talk about what you're building.
Book a free discovery call if you want to talk through fit. Use contact for paid reviews, scoped audits, platform questions, or anything that needs more detail before scheduling.
Book discovery -> Contact for services ->
Or email directly: hillary.segeren@gmail.com
Ontario, Canada | Remote engagements available globally