Decision Assurance Infrastructure
Summit Cognitive
§ Solutions — FedRAMP

Authorization is a snapshot. Monitoring is forever.

FedRAMP authorization gets a cloud service into federal hands; continuous monitoring keeps it there. As AI capabilities land inside authorized services, both sides of the table inherit a problem: the SaaS provider must evidence what its AI components decide, and the agency must assess AI behavior it did not build. Summit is the decision-evidence layer for that problem.

§ 01

The mandate, in plain language

FedRAMP standardizes how federal agencies assess and continuously monitor cloud services against NIST 800-53. Two obligations matter here.

Obligation 1

For SaaS providers

Continuous monitoring is a standing evidentiary duty — periodic assessments, POA&M upkeep, significant-change documentation. Adding AI features to an authorized boundary raises a question your 3PAO will ask: how are these decisions controlled, and where is the evidence?
Obligation 2

For agencies

Authorizing officials accept risk on behalf of the government, including supply-chain risk from the AI inside vendor services. "The vendor says it is governed" is not a risk-acceptance basis; verifiable evidence is.

A statement we will always make precisely: Summit is not FedRAMP authorized, and does not claim to be. What Summit provides is decision evidence that supports FedRAMP-bound programs — the artifacts your continuous-monitoring and SCRM processes consume.

§ 02

What Summit produces for FedRAMP-bound programs

Artifact

Continuous-monitoring evidence→

Signed, replayable receipts for every AI decision in scope — generated continuously, so monthly and annual evidence requests become exports from the system of record rather than reconstruction projects.
Artifact

800-53 control statements→

Twenty published NIST 800-53 control implementation statements, with an evidence exporter that renders live receipts into package-ready artifacts — SSP sections and POA&M inputs for the AI-relevant controls.
Artifact

SCRM decision evidence→

For agencies assessing AI inside vendor services: independently verifiable receipts answer what the AI component decided and under which policy — without requiring access to the vendor's internals, because verification is cryptographic.
Artifact

Significant-change support→

Fielding an AI capability into an authorized boundary is a change someone must document and defend. Deterministic replay and verification certificates give the change package substance beyond architecture diagrams.
§ 03

How to start

Start with the AI capability that will draw the next hard question — from your 3PAO, your PMO contact, or your authorizing official.

  1. 01
    Identify the AI decision surface
    The AI feature inside (or headed into) the authorization boundary, and the controls it implicates.
  2. 02
    Instrument it for ten days
    Receipts on every decision, policy gates live, replay verified — producing the evidence stream continuous monitoring expects.
  3. 03
    Package the artifacts
    Control-mapped evidence exports plus a governance findings memo, ready for your next assessment cycle or risk-acceptance discussion.

Give your AO something verifiable.

The 10-Day Decision Assurance Pilot instruments one AI decision surface and delivers the control-mapped evidence your monitoring cycle — or your agency's risk review — will ask for.

Start a PilotNIST AI RMF mapping