Lead AI risk and compliance, project

The work

Maps obligations under regimes such as the EU AI Act and ISO 42001 onto what a business is really doing.

A defined outcome with a defined end. The scope is agreed before you start, and changing it is a new conversation rather than a favour.

The bar

You have owned delivery and you have set the standard others worked to, including saying no to work that was already funded.

Why this one is hard to judge. The field is young, the certifications are new, and a confident summary of a regulation is not the same as having applied it.

What we ask to see

• A real system you mapped to a regulatory obligation, and where the mapping was uncomfortable
• An assessment you signed, and what you would not sign
• Evidence the mapping survived somebody else checking it

One solid item beats five vague ones. A referee we can actually call beats a link to a landing page.

What gets an application declined

• The only evidence offered is a certification, a course, or a job title
• Every piece of evidence is under an NDA and no sanitised version or referee is offered
• The work described is entirely a demonstration, a proof of concept, or a hackathon
• More than six disciplines are claimed, which we read as a signal that none has been assessed

If we decline you, the reason is written down and sent to you. The software refuses a decline without one.

What it pays

Nothing is published for this discipline in the UK advertised market, so there is no figure to give you and we are not going to invent one.

Nothing published. The work is real and rising with the EU AI Act timetable, and it is still being advertised as risk, audit or regulatory affairs with AI mentioned in the body. Until that changes there is no honest number to give you.