AI Safety · Governance · Evaluation

Governance you can inspect, not just promise.

I build tests, audit records, and human-approval controls that help teams detect when AI agents exceed their authority—and show reviewers what happened.

Target roles: AI Evaluation Engineer, AI Governance Engineer, Safety Research Engineer, and technical responsible-AI program leadership. Also open to select consulting and research collaboration.

3 public repositoriesReadable, runnable governance artifacts
Reproducible checksTests, runners, reports, and CI evidence
Explicit boundariesEvery public claim states where proof stops
San Diego, CAOpen to serious roles and collaborations

What I can do for your team

Translate broad responsible-AI goals into controls and evidence that technical, governance, and leadership reviewers can inspect.

Design agent-boundary evaluations

Turn authority, escalation, and refusal requirements into structured cases, deterministic checks, and reviewable reports.

Make decisions reconstructable

Create action receipts and audit patterns that preserve what was proposed, permitted, blocked, reviewed, and executed.

Build human-approval workflows

Define when automation may proceed, when it must stop, and what evidence a person needs to make the decision.

Package evidence for review

Connect claims to tests, artifacts, limitations, and reproducible instructions for technical and nontechnical audiences.

Looking for someone who can turn AI-governance principles into inspectable evaluation and review mechanisms?

Discuss a role or project

Why Tom

I bring operational accountability into AI governance engineering.

More than a decade leading operations in high-growth organizations taught me that controls must work under real deadlines, budgets, handoffs, and executive scrutiny. That experience now shapes how I build AI evaluation and oversight artifacts: clear authority, explicit escalation, reconstructable decisions, and honest limits.

OPERATIONS LEADERSHIP → TESTABLE AI GOVERNANCE → REVIEWABLE EVIDENCE

Operational judgmentExperience supporting rapid growth, complex programs, and multi-million-dollar budgets.
Public technical artifactsPython-based evaluation, audit, and human-oversight examples that reviewers can inspect.
High-accountability backgroundOperations leadership and U.S. Coast Guard service inform a practical approach to authority and escalation.
Evidence disciplineClaims are connected to artifacts and paired with explicit limitations.

How I work

A system that works but isn't right isn't a system you can trust. I hold every piece of work to three questions at once.

01 · ETHOS

Is it right?

Moral intent is an engineering constraint, not a policy layer added after shipping. Boundaries and refusals are evaluated as behavior, not described in a document.

02 · TECHNE

Is it coherent?

The patterns worth trusting show up across disciplines — cognitive science, cryptography, governance, systems design. When the same structure recurs, that's the signal.

03 · LOGOS

Does it hold?

Every claim should be reconstructable — traceable to a file, a test, or a report. If an artifact can't survive its own review, it doesn't ship.

UNA — governed private research

My private research uses a rule-based governance layer: proposed changes pass through review checkpoints, and governed changes produce records that can be audited later.

In plain language: the system separates proposing an action from approving and executing it. The public artifacts are clean-room examples of that method; they do not independently verify the complete private system.

How the governance works →

The site explains the work. GitHub shows the artifacts.

Public repositories, benchmark docs, reproducible runners, CI evidence, and honest limitations — inspectable support for the bounded claims made here.