Downloads
IWhat this is
A company now has three kinds of deciders: people, algorithms, and AI assistants and agents. Most companies have written rules only for the first kind.
The Simon G. Method is a short, practical way to put all three under the same control. It tells you what to write down, what to record each time, and what to measure afterwards. It needs no particular software. You can start with one page and a spreadsheet.
It gives an executive team four things:
| Promise | What it means |
|---|---|
| Control | Data and models run where the company decides |
| Accountability | A named person answers for every class of decision |
| Evidence | Every decision leaves a record an auditor can read |
| Return | The money effect of each decision is measured, not assumed |
IIWho it is for
Any company where software proposes or takes decisions about stock, prices, credit, payments, people or customers. It was written for companies of 50 to 2,000 employees, where there is no separate governance department and the same few executives carry the consequences.
IIIThe seven rules
1. Every class of decision has a named owner
List the decisions that matter: a dozen or two, not hundreds. Put one person's name beside each. A committee is not a name.
2. Every freedom given to a machine has a signed limit
For each class, write what the machine may do alone and where it must stop and ask. The limit is a number or a condition, signed by the owner, with a review date. A vendor's default setting that nobody changed is a limit nobody signed.
3. Every proposal carries its evidence
A proposal states what is true now, what is proposed, the reasoning, the expected effect in money, and which inputs were missing. A proposal that cannot show its reasoning is not approved.
Missing information is stated as missing. It is never replaced silently with a zero or a default.
4. A person signs
Inside the limit, the machine may act and the record says so. Outside it, a named person approves or rejects, and gives a reason when rejecting. Above a second threshold, the person who proposed cannot be the person who approves.
5. The record cannot be rewritten
Decisions are added to the record and never edited or deleted. A correction is a new entry that points to the old one. This holds for administrators too.
6. The effect is measured against a baseline fixed beforehand
Before a decision is applied, write down the figure it is meant to change and its current value. Afterwards, measure the same figure the same way. A decision is then marked verified, underperforming or not measurable.
A result without a baseline proves nothing, in either direction.
7. Data and models stay inside a perimeter the company controls
Decide where data may be processed and which models may see it. Anything that crosses the perimeter is written down: what, to whom, and why. Local processing is the default, and sending data out is the exception that needs a signature.
IVThe three documents
| Document | What it holds | Size |
|---|---|---|
| Decision charter | Who may decide what, within which limits | One page |
| Decision record | One entry per decision, with evidence, signature and outcome | One row each |
| Perimeter statement | Where data and models run, and what may leave | Half a page |
The decision charter
Six columns, one row per class of decision:
| Column | Content |
|---|---|
| Class | The kind of decision |
| Owner | One named person |
| Machine may act alone | The conditions and the ceiling |
| Escalates when | The trigger that sends it to a person |
| Health signals | What is watched to see whether the gate works |
| Review date | When the row is looked at again |
A template ready to fill in: decision-charter-template.csv.
The decision record
| Field | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Class and charter version | Which row of the charter applied |
| Subject | What the decision is about |
| Proposer | A person, an algorithm, an AI model or an agent, with its version |
| Inputs | The data used, its date, and what was missing |
| Current and proposed | The value now and the value proposed |
| Evidence | The reasoning and the expected effect in money |
| Limit check | Whether the proposal was inside the signed limit |
| Decisions | Who approved or rejected, in which role, when, and why |
| Baseline | The figure to be changed, fixed before the decision |
| Outcome | The figure afterwards, the measured effect, and the verdict |
| Perimeter | Whether any data left the company, and where to |
| Previous record | The entry this one corrects or replaces |
A record moves through these states: proposed, approved or rejected, applied, then verified, underperforming or rolled back. A proposal nobody acts on expires.
The full definition: decision-record-0.1.schema.json.
VFour signals that the gates work
| Signal | What it reveals |
|---|---|
| Rejection rate | A gate that never says no is a formality. A gate that rejects most proposals means the limit or the machine is wrong. |
| Reversals | How often an approved decision is undone shows whether the limit sits in the right place. |
| Time to decision | A slow gate teaches people to go around it. |
| Review triggers | Review on a calendar, after an incident, and after any model or vendor update. |
VIFour levels
A company does not need to do everything at once.
| Level | Name | What exists | Effort to reach |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Written | The charter and the perimeter statement | An afternoon |
| 2 | Recorded | Decision records are kept, even in a spreadsheet | Two to four weeks |
| 3 | Measured | Baselines are fixed and outcomes verified | One quarter |
| 4 | Enforced | The system refuses what the charter does not allow, and the record cannot be altered | Software |
The effort figures are estimates. Levels 1 to 3 need discipline and no purchase. Level 4 is what Simon G. does.
VIIStarter decision classes
These are the classes most companies share. Owners and limits are examples to be replaced with your own.
| Function | Class | Typical owner | Machine may act alone | Escalates when |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supply chain | Replenishment order | Head of supply chain | Low-value, steady items under a value ceiling | High-value item, value above the ceiling, unusual demand |
| Supply chain | Change of safety stock or reorder point | Planner | Never | Always a proposal |
| Supply chain | Transfer between locations | Planner | Under a quantity ceiling | Above it, or when the sending location falls below its own minimum |
| Supply chain | Disposal or markdown of excess stock | Commercial director | Never | Always a proposal |
| Sales | Price change | Commercial director | Inside a signed corridor around the list price | Outside the corridor, or for key accounts |
| Sales | Discount above list terms | Sales manager | Never | Always a proposal |
| Finance | Customer credit limit | Credit controller | Small increases for customers with a clean payment history | Any decrease, any increase above a threshold |
| Finance | Release of a payment run | Head of finance | Never | Always two signatures |
| Finance | Write-off of a receivable | CFO | Never | Always a proposal |
| Management | Override of a forecast | Planner | Never | Always, with a stated reason |
| Customer service | Refund or compensation | Service manager | Routine cases under a value ceiling | Above it, or when the customer is in distress |
| People | Screening of job applicants | Head of HR | Search, sort and summarise | Every rejection belongs to a person |
| IT | Approval of a new AI tool | CIO | Never | Always a proposal |
| IT | Data leaving the perimeter | CIO | Never | Always a proposal |
| IT | Update of a model or vendor version | CIO | Never | Always, and it triggers a review of the classes that use it |
VIIIHow the method relates to regulation
The method does not make a company compliant by itself. It produces the evidence that several rules ask for.
| Rule | What it asks | What the method provides |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act, Article 14 | Human oversight of high-risk systems | Rules 1, 2 and 4 |
| EU AI Act, Article 26 | Users of high-risk systems keep logs and name the people who oversee them | Rules 4 and 5 |
| EU AI Act, Article 4 | Staff who use AI understand it well enough | The charter, as training material |
| GDPR, Article 22 | No decision with legal effect on a person by machine alone | Rule 4 for classes that touch people |
| NIS2 | Risk management and documented security measures | Rule 7 |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | A management system for AI | The three documents, as its operating core |
Most stock, price and payment decisions are not high-risk under the AI Act. For them the reason to use the method is commercial: knowing what each decision earned, and who stands behind it.
IXHow it relates to existing standards
| Standard | What it covers | Relation |
|---|---|---|
| OMG DMN | How decision logic is modelled | Describes the rule; the decision record describes each use of it |
| W3C PROV | Provenance of data in general | The record's inputs can be expressed in it |
| Open Policy Agent decision logs | Policy decisions in software systems | A technical log one level below the business record |
| OpenTelemetry for AI agents | Traces of what an agent did | A source of evidence for the record |
None of these records a business decision with its approver, its limit and its measured effect in money. That is the gap the decision record fills.
XWhat the method does not do
- It does not judge whether a model is accurate or fair. It records what was decided on the model's advice, and by whom.
- It does not replace security controls. It states the perimeter; enforcing it is the job of the company's IT.
- It does not decide where a limit should be. That is the owner's judgment, and two honest companies will set it differently.
XIStart this week
- List your decision classes, using the starter table.
- Put a name beside each.
- Write one limit per class, and sign it.
- Write the perimeter statement.
- Record the next ten decisions in a spreadsheet, using the fields above.
The Simon G. Method is published by Groma. The reasoning behind it is set out in "The machine may decide. A human signs where.". To see part of it at work, try the free Simon G. Stock Check.