MICHVI Evidence Assessment
An independent assessment of the evidence being relied upon for a defined consequential decision.
The Problem
A consequential decision is a business decision where the evidence relied upon can materially affect investment, revenue, risk, accountability or another meaningful business outcome. Such a decision may depend on evidence coming from multiple systems that do not comfortably agree.
The Evidence Assessment is not a generic analytics or website audit. It starts from the decision, not from the tools.
What MICHVI Determines
How much reliance can be placed on the relevant digital evidence, and where the reliance boundary sits:
Supported
The evidence can bear the decision.
Insufficient / unsupported
The evidence cannot bear the decision as it stands.
Unknown
Reliance cannot be established from the available evidence.
Standard Scope
- One defined consequential decision domain.
- Up to three material evidence journeys.
- Variants do not automatically become separate journeys unless the evidence chain materially differs.
Inputs
No client credentials by default. Evidence may come from:
- Client-supplied reports, exports and documents
- Screenshots and evidence extracts
- Controlled screenshare or read-only demonstration
- Public and observable evidence
- Agreed stakeholder conversations
Price
from £5,000
from €5,000
Final fee confirmed at scoping. Standard scope as above. Material scope expansion requires a written re-scope and a revised fee.
What You Receive
- Executive Assurance Brief
- Decision & Evidence Map
- Evidence Register
- Findings & Conflicts Register
- Journey Evidence Pack
- Reliance Boundary
- Prioritised Resolution Plan
- Executive Walkthrough
- Closure Record
How It Works
Consequential decision
Evidence informing that decision
Material evidence journeys
Conflicts / gaps / support
Reliance determination
Executive decision support
What It Is Not
- Not a website, analytics, tag or cookie audit.
- Not an implementation engagement.
- Not a compliance or legal opinion.
- Not a software product.
- MEA is an independent advisory assessment. It is not a statutory audit or a formal assurance engagement.
MEA is standalone. No downstream service, retainer, technology or implementation purchase is required. Read about MICHVI's independence →
Questions
- Do you need access to our systems?
- Not by default. Evidence comes from client-supplied reports, exports and documents, screenshots or evidence extracts, controlled screenshare or read-only demonstration, public or observable evidence, and agreed stakeholder conversations. No client credentials are requested by default. Direct system access is outside standard scope; where genuinely necessary, it is separately approved and scoped.
- Is this a compliance or legal review?
- No. The Evidence Assessment does not provide a legal opinion. Consent behaviour may appear as one evidence factor where it is material to the decision.
- Does the Evidence Assessment cover privacy governance?
- No. The Evidence Assessment examines the evidence being relied upon for a defined consequential decision. How an organisation governs personal-data processing, privacy accountability and operational controls is the subject of the separate MICHVI Privacy Governance Assessment.
- Our agency already checks our tracking. How is this different?
- A configuration check answers a different question. MICHVI examines whether the evidence can bear a named decision, independently of whoever maintains it. It does not assess the agency.
- Can MICHVI also fix what it finds?
- The Evidence Assessment is complete in itself. The Prioritised Resolution Plan is usable by any team. Where the assessment establishes a justified need, separate downstream support may be discussed. Any such work is scoped separately and is never a condition of, or assumed by, the assessment.
- Will you sell us software afterwards?
- The Evidence Assessment is complete on its own. Any other engagement is separate and optional. Any related-entity relationship is disclosed on the Independence page.
- What if our need is larger than the standard scope?
- Material expansion — for example a second unrelated decision domain or more than three materially distinct evidence journeys — requires a written re-scope and a revised fee.
- How many findings will there be?
- No number of findings is guaranteed.
Who Stands Behind the Assessment
Ashok Kumar Jha
Founder & Senior Governance Advisor
Retired Senior Officer, Bihar Administrative Service, with approximately three decades of public service across administrative systems, institutional oversight and public accountability.
Published Research
- Digital Signal Governance: A Foundational Framework for the Signal Layer of Digital Systems. Shikhar Jha. SSRN working paper, 2026. doi:10.2139/ssrn.7146702
- Digital Signal Governance (DSG): Conceptual Framework Repository. Shikhar Jha. Zenodo, 2026. doi:10.5281/zenodo.20611372
- The Changing Governance in India. Ashok Kumar Jha and Shikhar Jha. SSRN working paper, 2026. doi:10.2139/ssrn.7271626
Open technical contributions: Evidence Rail, Deletion Evidence and Basisline, published at github.com/michvi-open.
Evidence Assessment