Letters, briefs and reports can be shown with their own typography. Automatic keeps that only while none of your settings above ask otherwise.
Assessment Services
Structured, criterion-based review under the SLAT Index™, before adoption, procurement, pilot use, or public deployment, so the decision rests on evidence rather than marketing.
Every assessment runs under the published SLAT Index: five domains, eleven criteria, fifty-four indicators, and computed trust ratings that assessors cannot adjust. The method is public and citable; the findings are engineered to be defensible.
Five engagement types, one method. Each is scoped to the decision in front of you and delivered as a documented, criterion-based finding.
A public-evidence review of a sign language AI vendor or product: claims, governance disclosures, evidence gaps, and procurement concerns, reported criterion by criterion. A fast, credible orientation before deeper engagement.
The full SLAT engagement: formal evidence requests, a Deaf Comprehension Review of observed output where scoped, and a computed trust rating with a deployment classification for your setting.
For adoption, pilots, RFP language, vendor selection, or contract evaluation. Maps vendor evidence to your intended use and produces procurement-usable findings: risk issues, vendor questions, contract safeguards, evaluation criteria.
A policy and accountability review of the structures around a system: oversight, human-review pathways, Deaf and disabled governance, risk escalation, transparency, and deployment safeguards.
For high-impact settings: healthcare, emergency response, education, courts, employment, public benefits. The same system carries different risk in different contexts; this review asks whether yours is appropriate for the current evidence.
Not sure which fits? Start with a Trust Snapshot: it is the fastest way to see what the public record does and does not establish, and it scopes everything after it.
An engagement moves through five stages. You will know where it stands at every one of them.
Contact us with the vendor or product, the intended use, and the decision you are trying to make.
We agree the engagement type, the deployment context and its stakes, and what the finding will cover.
We gather the record: public evidence, your procurement materials, and, in a full assessment, formal evidence requests to the vendor.
The evidence is worked through the SLAT Index criteria, with Deaf reviewer determinations wherever signed output is examined.
You receive a documented, criterion-based finding: written for the people who must defend the decision.
The questions institutions ask before engaging, answered plainly.
Governments, healthcare systems, universities, courts, employers, and other public-serving institutions evaluating sign language AI, and vendors preparing their own products for assessment. The finding states who commissioned it and on what fee basis; a paid assessment is not an endorsement and is not sold as one.
A Snapshot reviews the public record only and reports what it does and does not establish; it produces an evidence availability profile rather than a rating. A Trust Assessment is the full engagement: formal evidence requests, direct examination of signed output by qualified Deaf reviewers where scoped, and a computed trust rating with a deployment classification for your setting.
The vendor or product under consideration, the intended use case and setting, and the decision you are trying to make. Procurement documents, RFP drafts, and vendor materials help but are not required to start; scoping identifies what else the engagement needs.
A Trust Snapshot is measured in weeks; a full Trust Assessment is longer because the vendor receives formal evidence requests with a defined response window, and findings pass second-assessor review and a cooling period before publication. Scoping fixes the timeline before work begins.
No. A SLAT finding states what the evidence supports, on a published five-tier scale, with a deployment classification for the assessed setting. It is not a government certification, not legal advice, and not an endorsement. That restraint is deliberate: it is what makes the finding defensible.
Yes, through a documented path. Vendors receive the evidence requests, a defined window to respond, and a reconciliation procedure where they dispute an observation. What the signed output did is determined by qualified Deaf reviewers, and findings concerning signed output do not issue without their concurrence.
No. Commissioning an engagement requires no license: we conduct it under the framework and deliver the finding. Licensing applies when your organization wants to apply the framework itself, in procurement criteria, internal review, or vendor evaluation; the published volumes and licensing terms are described on the Framework page.
Evidence supplied in confidence is identified in the finding as material the contracting institution cannot itself inspect, and the criteria resting on it are named. Signer video is treated as biometric and identifiable, with handling to match.
Start a secure, passwordless consultation from your browser. Message our team directly; every reply is written by a person, supported by AI behind the scenes. Screen-reader friendly, keyboard-operable, with an option to listen.
The cost of a structured assessment is small. The cost of an access failure is not.
Request an assessment