AI systems
You may not have one defensible inventory of every AI product, model, provider, integration, and workflow.
Independent AI security assessment · Healthcare
When a hospital, health system, or payer asks how your AI handles their data, Ayliea produces independent, evidence-backed answers you can hand to their security and vendor-risk reviewers.
A named assessor examines your AI systems, data flows, and safeguards, maps findings to the HIPAA Security Rule and NIST AI RMF, and signs the report. No platform, no proxy — the person who reaches the conclusion stands behind it.
01 / THE REVIEW TRIGGER
A SOC 2 report, policy set, or completed questionnaire may not answer the AI-specific questions now appearing in healthcare diligence.
You may not have one defensible inventory of every AI product, model, provider, integration, and workflow.
Reviewers need to understand what information reaches which AI providers—and under what controls.
Existing artifacts may not explain the AI-specific controls, decisions, and residual risks the reviewer is asking about.
02 / THE DELIVERABLE
Reviewer-ready evidence
The assessment turns a dispersed set of systems, data flows, controls, and evidence into a coherent, signed record. Deliverables are tailored to engagement scope—not represented as universal hospital requirements.
AI security evidence package
01Executive summary✓
02AI system inventory✓
03Data-flow documentation✓
04Security findings✓
05Risk prioritization✓
06HIPAA safeguard mapping✓
07NIST AI RMF mapping✓
08Remediation recommendations✓
09Evidence references✓
10Assessor sign-off✓
Findings, limitations, and evidence references are documented within the agreed scope.
Assessment basis
Evidence is labeled by source and review method so a receiving reviewer can distinguish direct observation from supplied documents, stakeholder representations, and work that was not tested.
Directly inspected artifacts, settings, demonstrations, or workflows.
Documentation provided by the client or another in-scope source.
A stakeholder statement that was not independently established.
A procedure or condition the written scope did not independently validate.
03 / Engagement
The process is led by the named assessor from the first evidence request through final sign-off.
20-minute call to determine systems, entities, data flows, evidence, and review requirements.
The named assessor reviews the environment and the evidence provided.
Findings, mappings, limitations, and remediation recommendations are documented.
The named assessor reviews and signs the final assessment.
You may provide the assessment during relevant healthcare diligence.
The receiving organization determines what evidence it requires and whether the assessment is sufficient for its review.
04 / WHO IT IS FOR
Primary engagement
Selling technology or services into healthcare and being asked to explain how AI is governed, where sensitive information goes, and how risk is managed.
For healthcare vendorsUnderstand where AI systems interact with sensitive healthcare information and document the associated security risk.
Learn more →Clear evidence presentation for professionals evaluating AI use and related safeguards.
05 / Independent review
Compliance software can help organize controls, evidence, and workflows. An independent assessment applies contextual professional review to that material.
Controls
Evidence collection
Workflow
Questionnaires
Assessor judgment
Contextual evidence evaluation
Documented limitations & findings
Remediation priorities & named sign-off
06 / METHODOLOGY
The assessment is evidence-led and maps relevant findings to established AI security frameworks—NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, and the HIPAA Security Rule among them—rather than a proprietary standard. Evidence-quality decisions and professional judgments remain documented and attributable to the named assessor.
Explore the methodology
Named assessor07 / NAMED ASSESSOR
Daviyon Daniels, CISSP
Ayliea deliberately uses a named-assessor model. Daviyon Daniels evaluates the evidence, documents the assessment’s scope and limitations, forms the findings, and signs the final assessment.
The methodology supports consistency; the named assessor remains accountable for the scope, evidence decisions, limitations, and professional conclusion.
About the assessor →08 / BEFORE YOU BOOK
Review the structure, evidence presentation, findings, framework mappings, limitations, and assessor sign-off before booking a call.
See a sample report09 / Engagement levels
Final pricing depends on the number of AI systems, entities, evidence requirements, frameworks, and overall engagement complexity.
10 / Buyer questions
The engagement can produce a signed assessment with an executive summary, scoped AI inventory, data-flow documentation, evidence-backed findings, risk prioritization, framework references, limitations, and remediation recommendations. Exact contents depend on the agreed scope.
You may provide the assessment as evidence during relevant security, vendor-risk, procurement, or partner diligence. Each reviewer decides what evidence it requires, who may rely on the report, and whether the assessment is sufficient.
A scope may include document review, stakeholder interviews, configuration inspection, observation, demonstrations, and sampling. The written scope states which procedures were performed and which were not.
Not automatically. Penetration testing, source-code review, model-performance evaluation, AI red-teaming, and continuous monitoring are excluded unless separately scoped and documented.
The report identifies unavailable, stale, conflicting, client-represented, and not-tested evidence. Conclusions are qualified when evidence quality or coverage limits confidence.
The report is point-in-time. It states its assessment date or period, evidence cutoff, scope, and change-after-assessment boundary. Material changes may require an update or new assessment.
Ayliea's published posture is no PHI by design. Do not send patient records, PHI, credentials, questionnaires, or assessment evidence through the booking page or initial email. Engagement-specific transfer arrangements are established in writing.
Ayliea is an external, paid assessor rather than the organization being assessed or its regulator. Independence does not imply governmental authority. Potential conflicts are addressed during scoping, and commercial outcomes are not guaranteed.
Factual errors and evidence references can be corrected through a documented review process. A request to change a commercial outcome does not require the assessor to change a supported professional conclusion.
Once your evidence is ready, a Focused Assessment typically runs about 3–4 weeks and a Comprehensive Assessment about 5–6 weeks. Timing still depends on scope, system count, entities, procedures, and how quickly evidence and stakeholders are available, so the scoping call sets a realistic plan for your engagement.
Focused Assessments start at $6,500. Comprehensive Assessments start at $15,000. Enterprise Programs use a custom scope.
No. Ayliea does not provide a government-backed HIPAA certification, certify that an organization is HIPAA compliant, or guarantee compliance. Relevant findings may be mapped to applicable HIPAA Security Rule safeguards.
Ayliea maps and aligns relevant findings to established AI security frameworks: NIST AI RMF 1.0, ISO/IEC 42001:2023, HIPAA Security Rule, OWASP LLM Top 10, MITRE ATLAS. These references frame the findings so a receiving reviewer can place them in a familiar context. Mapping and alignment are not certification or endorsement—Ayliea is not a certification body—and professional judgments and evidence-quality decisions remain explained and attributable to the assessor.
Next step
Use a 20-minute scoping call to clarify what the reviewer is asking for, what belongs in scope, and whether an independent Ayliea assessment is a fit.