Fionn Labs
Programs

Research Programs

From research questions to deployable governance methods

Each program is structured to produce decision-useful outputs, not abstract analysis. We define technical and governance questions, develop implementation tracks, and generate evidence artifacts that can support oversight and operational review.

Program design is intentionally mission-oriented. Defense autonomy, aerospace/space operations, and other high-consequence environments impose different failure modes. Our research tracks are built to surface those differences and then encode them into repeatable method patterns.

Program

Decision Traceability and Assurance

Develop robust methods for recording, evaluating, and governing AI-driven decisions in high-consequence edge and mission contexts.

Mission Application

Contested Edge Autonomy

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

Mission Application

Proliferated LEO Decision Networks

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

Research Questions

  • - What decision structures best support policy accountability and technical review?
  • - How should assurance claims remain verifiable across model and data updates?
  • - What evidence thresholds create practical trust for leadership and oversight teams?

Implementation Tracks

  • - Decision logging architecture and schema design
  • - Assurance case templates and review criteria
  • - Traceability controls integrated with delivery workflows

Evidence Outputs

  • - Decision traceability specification
  • - Assurance criteria matrix
  • - Review-board briefing package

Milestone Timeline

0-3 months

Establish decision semantics baseline and logging schema prototypes for one mission-relevant workflow.

  • - Decision ontology and event taxonomy draft
  • - Traceability schema prototype with uncertainty annotation
  • - Initial assurance acceptance criteria set

3-6 months

Validate traceability quality under scenario variation and versioned model behavior.

  • - Scenario test matrix and replay harness
  • - Trace continuity assessment across model updates
  • - Review-board oriented evidence package v1

6-12 months

Operationalize traceability controls in delivery workflows with governance checkpoint integration.

  • - Delivery pipeline integration blueprint
  • - Control checkpoint runbook
  • - Executive and technical review package v2

Success Metrics

Decision trace completeness

Target: >=95% of high-consequence decision events capture required fields.

Completeness is the foundation for defensible review and post-event analysis.

Trace continuity through updates

Target: No critical trace break across major model/version transitions in validation scenarios.

Continuity protects assurance claims as systems evolve over time.

Review-cycle preparation time

Target: Reduce evidence assembly effort by at least 30% versus baseline documentation workflows.

Funding impact is strongest when governance quality improves without slowing operations.

Program

Policy-to-Controls Translation

Translate complex policy and regulatory requirements into executable controls and procedures across technical and governance domains.

Mission Application

BVLOS Flight Governance

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

Mission Application

Human-Machine Teaming

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

Research Questions

  • - How should policy intent be decomposed into testable controls?
  • - Which ownership structures reduce governance failure in cross-functional programs?
  • - How can procedures evolve with changing guidance while preserving consistency?

Implementation Tracks

  • - Mandate decomposition and control crosswalks
  • - Procedure design and validation
  • - Operational adoption planning

Evidence Outputs

  • - Mandate crosswalk matrix
  • - Control catalog and SOP package
  • - Governance readiness assessment

Milestone Timeline

0-3 months

Decompose priority mandates into control intent statements with ownership and accountability definitions.

  • - Policy decomposition tree
  • - Control ownership and escalation matrix
  • - Initial procedure skeleton aligned to risk tiers

3-6 months

Pilot control implementation and evaluate interpretation consistency across technical and governance teams.

  • - Control-to-workflow mapping pack
  • - Procedure validation session outputs
  • - Interpretation variance report

6-12 months

Scale policy translation architecture into repeatable operating routines for multi-team programs.

  • - Operational SOP package and maintenance cadence
  • - Governance readiness and ownership audit package
  • - Cross-program control library release

Success Metrics

Control interpretation consistency

Target: Reduce cross-team interpretation variance by >=40% in structured validation sessions.

Lower variance directly improves implementation reliability and audit defensibility.

Ownership clarity for high-risk controls

Target: 100% of high-risk controls mapped to named accountable functions and escalation paths.

Unowned controls are a recurring source of governance failure in complex programs.

Procedure adoption fidelity

Target: At least 85% adherence to defined procedures during pilot operational cycles.

Adoption quality determines whether policy translation delivers operational value.

Program

Regulatory Readiness and Review Preparedness

Build repeatable readiness workflows for technical review, audit interaction, and regulator-facing communication under uncertainty.

Mission Application

BVLOS Flight Governance

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

Mission Application

Proliferated LEO Decision Networks

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

Research Questions

  • - Which artifact structures support fast and reliable review cycles?
  • - How can review simulations surface governance gaps before deployment?
  • - What communication models improve quality and speed of program decisions?

Implementation Tracks

  • - Readiness review simulation
  • - Gap closure sequencing
  • - Technical narrative and evidence alignment

Evidence Outputs

  • - Readiness report and action plan
  • - Mitigation tracking matrix
  • - Executive technical communication set

Milestone Timeline

0-3 months

Define review scenarios, artifact expectations, and baseline readiness scoring model.

  • - Readiness review protocol
  • - Artifact quality rubric
  • - Program communication baseline template

3-6 months

Run structured review simulations and close priority governance gaps.

  • - Simulation findings and remediation log
  • - Gap closure sequencing plan
  • - Updated evidence package set

6-12 months

Institutionalize continuous readiness workflows integrated with operational delivery cadence.

  • - Continuous readiness operating model
  • - Quarterly review drill framework
  • - Executive risk communication playbook

Success Metrics

Readiness score improvement

Target: Increase composite readiness score by >=25 points from baseline in first two cycles.

Quantified readiness improvement demonstrates grant-funded program efficacy.

Critical finding recurrence

Target: Zero repeat critical findings across consecutive review simulations.

Non-recurrence indicates durable control improvement rather than one-time remediation.

Decision latency in review forums

Target: Reduce decision turnaround time by >=20% while maintaining evidence quality thresholds.

High-quality faster decisions are central to public-value impact in mission programs.

Learning Opportunities

Learning Opportunities

Deep technical learning pathways

For teams building internal capability, these pathways provide a structured progression from method foundations to mission-ready implementation.

Decision Traceability Lab

Develop practical capability to represent, evaluate, and govern AI-driven mission decisions under changing operational conditions.

  • - Decision semantics and schema design
  • - Confidence and uncertainty annotation methods
  • - Trace continuity across model and data updates

Runtime Governance for Edge Autonomy

Build implementation-ready control models for autonomous systems operating with constrained communication and dynamic mission context.

  • - Runtime control boundary design
  • - Override and escalation logic under degraded conditions
  • - Operational evidence capture during mission execution

Distributed Assurance for Space and Multi-Node Systems

Create governance methods for distributed decision chains where lineage, timing, and cross-platform integrity are mission critical.

  • - Cross-node lineage and provenance methods
  • - Distributed checkpoint and anomaly response design
  • - Mission-level assurance telemetry architecture

Review Readiness Engineering Studio

Train teams to produce review-ready evidence and decision narratives continuously rather than assembling documentation late in the lifecycle.

  • - Continuous readiness gates in delivery workflows
  • - Technical-to-governance communication patterns
  • - Review simulation and remediation sequencing
Delivery Capabilities

Delivery Capabilities

Cross-functional support model

Programs are supported by governance, control engineering, evidence architecture, and leadership communication design.

Governance Architecture

Definition of decision rights, escalation pathways, and accountability structures for AI-enabled programs.

Control and Procedure Engineering

Design of operational controls and procedures that are practical for delivery teams and robust for compliance functions.

Evidence System Design

Development of artifact standards and traceability models that support oversight, audit, and technical assurance.

Program Communication

Translation of technical findings into concise decision-oriented narratives for leadership and governance forums.