Questions we hear from CEOs, CIOs, and the teams they ask to evaluate us.

We map decision authority before automation runs. For every AI or automation initiative, we figure out who owns each decision, what boundaries apply, when someone needs to escalate, and what should never be automated. You get a governance framework your teams can build against and your board can approve.

Most AI governance work focuses on ethics policies, risk assessments, and compliance documents. We focus on operational authority: the specific decisions automation will make and who owns them. Policies tell you what you should do. Authority mapping tells you who decides, when, and within what limits.

The Big 4 serve enterprise clients at $500K+ per engagement with 6-12 month timelines. Their frameworks assume you have 10,000+ employees and a billion-dollar IT budget. For mid-market companies, that's overbuilt, overpriced, and takes too long.

Mesa Point delivers initiative-based authority mapping in 4-6 weeks at a fraction of the cost. Our platform automates the documentation and reporting work that makes traditional engagements so expensive.

No. We define authority. Your internal teams or implementation partners build the systems. We create the governance framework, decision boundaries, and technical specs they need to build it right. We stay involved through deployment to make sure what gets built matches the authority that was approved.

They can, if they have the time, methodology, and organizational authority to interview stakeholders across departments and make binding governance decisions. Most internal teams are building, not governing. We come in as a neutral third party with a proven process and platform. What would take your team 6+ months, we finish in weeks.

Because authority defined after deployment is remediation. When AI systems are already making decisions without clear ownership, you're not governing. You're reacting. The cost to retrofit authority into live systems runs 3-5x higher than defining it upfront. And the risk exposure until then? Unlimited.

Frameworks tell you what categories to think about. They don't tell you who in your organization owns the decision to approve a $50K vendor payment, or when an automated credit decision needs human review. We use frameworks as inputs, then translate them into operational authority specific to your organization, your decisions, and your risk tolerance.

A 1-week, $5K engagement where we assess your decision architecture, identify high-risk automation areas, and deliver a scoping report with a fixed-fee proposal. If you move forward, the $5K gets credited toward the full engagement. Low-risk way to see if there's a fit.

We scope engagements around specific automation initiatives, not enterprise-wide transformation programs. If you're automating accounts payable, we map authority for accounts payable decisions. This keeps engagements focused, fast, and tied to actual business outcomes instead of theoretical governance exercises.

4-6 weeks for a single initiative. 8-12 weeks for multiple initiatives. Longer for complex enterprise environments. Timeline depends on how many decisions we're mapping and how many departments are involved.

Companies implementing AI or automation where decisions commit capital, affect customers, or create compliance exposure. If unclear authority could cost you seven figures or create regulatory risk, we can help.

Four things: (1) Decision Authority Matrix with ownership, thresholds, and escalation paths. (2) Board-Ready Executive Summary covering what gets automated, what needs oversight, and risk assessment. (3) Engineer-Ready Technical Specs with decision logic your team can build from. (4) Governance Playbook for ongoing monitoring and review.

You own everything we create. We transfer capability to your team so you can maintain and evolve decision authority on your own. We offer optional quarterly reviews if you want ongoing validation, but the goal is self-sufficiency, not dependency.

Not every decision should be automated. During discovery, we flag decisions where risk, complexity, or strategic importance requires human judgment, regardless of technical feasibility. These get documented with clear reasoning. Often the most valuable part of an engagement is knowing what not to build.