Pre-execution interception
Every governed action is submitted to MURAQIB before it executes. Until a clearance decision is returned, the action does not reach the target system. There is no "allow by default" path around the gate.
OQIRON does not sit beside your governance process — it is the enforcement layer that every agent action passes through before it executes. Control is structural, not a policy document an operator can forget to apply.
OQIRON governs agents it does not own — HUMAIN, Copilot, GPT, Claude, and custom institutional systems. That places one demand above all others: the clearance path itself must be the most trustworthy component in the institution. This page explains how.
The weakness of most AI governance is that it runs alongside execution: a dashboard, an after-the-fact audit, a policy nobody re-checks at runtime. OQIRON moves the control into the path the action must traverse.
Every governed action is submitted to MURAQIB before it executes. Until a clearance decision is returned, the action does not reach the target system. There is no "allow by default" path around the gate.
Policy is expressed as evaluable rules — not prose. The same gate evaluates the same way every time, removing the configuration drift and human inconsistency that policy documents invite.
Actions are checked against the authority level permitted to take them. An analyst-initiated action that requires board authority is escalated, not silently executed.
Escalation paths, approval gates, and override controls are first-class parts of the clearance model — built into the decision, not bolted on as an external workflow.
For a regulated institution, a decision you cannot reconstruct is a decision you cannot defend. Every clearance produces a tamper-evident record designed to stand up to an examiner months later.
Each decision is recorded with a cryptographic evidence identifier. The chain is designed so that alteration is detectable — an audit artifact, not a mutable log line.
Reconstruct exactly what was evaluated, which policy gates triggered, what the risk profile was, and why the decision landed where it did — action by action.
Evidence is exportable as a bilingual (Arabic / English) pack aligned to the jurisdictions in scope, so a compliance team hands an examiner a document, not a database query.
Because OQIRON evaluates sensitive actions, the safest design is to hold as little as possible. The lifecycle below is built around data minimisation and jurisdictional residency.
Action submissions arrive over authenticated, encrypted channels with schema validation at the edge.
Clearance operates on action type, classification, jurisdiction, and authority — designed to avoid retaining the underlying business data itself.
Evaluation and evidence remain within the contracted jurisdiction. Residency is enforced per deployment, aligned to SAMA and NDMO expectations.
Evidence retention follows a configurable policy per institution and data type, with automated enforcement.
Records can be purged across storage and logs under a defined deletion policy, with the action itself evidenced.
OQIRON is designed to sit at the institution's boundary without becoming a new exfiltration risk. The clearance model is identical across deployment environments.
Deployed inside the institution's own environment for the most sensitive mandates. The action path and evidence never leave the institutional boundary.
Hosted on dedicated, Gulf-resident infrastructure with per-institution tenancy and isolation.
Evaluation distributed across environments with data residency enforced per jurisdiction and per workflow.
OQIRON is early, and an institutional trust page is the wrong place to overstate. Below is the real posture — what is being pursued, and what is on the roadmap.
The AI management-system standard. OQIRON's governance and evidence model is being built to align with 42001; formal certification is in progress, not yet awarded.
Information-security management. Targeted as the platform and operating discipline mature toward independent audit.
The clearance and evidence model is designed around Saudi regulatory expectations for financial conduct, data management, and personal-data protection.
Because the clearance path is a single accountable component, incident response does not fragment across vendors.
The evaluation path is monitored, with anomaly detection across the clearance and evidence layers.
One team investigates and remediates the clearance layer — no finger-pointing across a vendor chain.
Material incidents produce a documented review, remediation plan, and timeline shared with affected institutions.
Not a sales call — a technical review of the enforcement path, the evidence model, and the deployment boundary, under NDA.