Engagement

How we collaborate

We engage where assurance quality and governance clarity are central to program success. Typical collaborations involve teams that need to improve control reliability while maintaining development tempo in demanding operational environments.

Engagements are scoped around explicit technical questions, governance constraints, and review milestones. This ensures work products remain useful to both technical operators and decision stakeholders.

Formal grant and procurement coordination follows a structured written intake process so reviewers can assess mission fit, technical approach, and expected public-value outcomes with minimal ambiguity.

Formal Coordination

Grant and Procurement Coordination

Formal pathway for funding and contracting discussions

Coordination Channels

Grant and procurement inquiries: coordination@fionnlabs.com (subject line: Federal Program Coordination Request)
Research collaboration intake: engagement@fionnlabs.com (subject line: Research Collaboration Intake)

Coordination Workflow

1. Intake packet submission

Submit mission context, program objective, operating constraints, and target review timeline.

Acknowledgment within 2 business days

2. Alignment review call

Conduct structured technical and governance scoping call with relevant program stakeholders.

Scheduled within 5 business days

3. Draft work package

Receive draft method scope, milestone plan, evidence outputs, and success-measure model.

Delivered within 10 business days after review call

4. Formal coordination handoff

Finalize statement of work or research collaboration memo with governance and reporting cadence.

Completed based on program procurement pathway

Engagement Modes

Collaboration structures

Method Development

Collaborative design and evaluation of assurance methods tailored to mission and enterprise constraints.

Governance Implementation

Translation of policy and regulatory obligations into controls, procedures, and accountable operational routines.

Review and Readiness Support

Preparation of evidence and communication packages for oversight forums, technical review boards, and external stakeholders.

Mission-Specific Collaboration

Examples of collaboration depth

Engagements are tailored to operating context rather than delivered as generic advisory tracks.

Contested Edge Autonomy

Edge decisions can diverge from mission intent when uncertainty handling is implicit or when control ownership is unclear under degraded conditions.

Define mission-phase decision semantics, implement runtime uncertainty thresholds, and bind override and escalation logic to explicit command authority paths.

BVLOS Flight Governance

Programs often prove platform capability but lack a durable method for demonstrating governance continuity across flight software updates and operating envelopes.

Implement policy-to-control translation for flight decision boundaries, tie release gates to assurance criteria, and maintain continuity across versioned autonomy behaviors.

Proliferated LEO Decision Networks

Without lineage and checkpoint discipline, local model or data failures can propagate across nodes before governance teams can respond.

Engineer distributed control checkpoints, lineage capture across node boundaries, and rapid escalation playbooks for cross-platform anomaly response.

Human-Machine Teaming

Technical adaptation can outpace policy and operator readiness, creating gaps in accountability, intervention timing, and post-event review quality.

Codify role-transition logic, intervention triggers, and after-action evidence capture so mission tempo can increase without governance ambiguity.

Operating Environments

Who We Serve

Common operating environments

Federal and Defense Programs

Mission teams requiring policy-consistent assurance methods for AI-enabled command, sensing, autonomy, and decision support.

- Governance architecture with explicit accountability
- Evidence packages for oversight and review boards
- Implementation playbooks for high-consequence operations

Aerospace and Space Systems Engineering

Organizations integrating AI into aircraft, UAS, satellite, and edge system workflows where traceability and reviewability are mandatory.

- Assurance-case development for mission systems
- Decision-event traceability and control integration
- Certification-oriented governance workflows

Large Regulated Enterprises

Enterprises designing resilient governance models across policy, legal, risk, security, and technical teams.

- Cross-jurisdiction control harmonization
- Operational procedure design
- Program-level risk communication models

Intake

Initial Intake

Information that accelerates technical alignment

Submit these details in the initial memo to accelerate technical scoping and grant/procurement alignment.

Program context and the decisions where AI behavior has the highest consequence.
Mission authority model, including override roles and escalation ownership.
Operational environment assumptions (edge constraints, airspace posture, or distributed space architecture).
Current governance baseline, including control maturity and organizational constraints.
Participating stakeholders across engineering, policy, legal, risk, and leadership.
Desired outputs, review milestones, and timeline assumptions.