Every AI initiative I oversee has become an uncontrolled cost centre with no owner. If we adopt your platform, how do I govern its spend — who watches it, with what controls, and what lands in my committee pack?

The full executive answer

The platform ships its own financial-control environment, designed on the same three-lines logic your committee applies elsewhere. First line — preventive controls owned by management: each subscription tier includes a defined AI-usage allowance ($12 within Basic, $45 within Pro, $150 within Max), and above the allowance sits an organisation-level monthly cap, per-module caps beneath it, and a configurable enforcement mode — warn versus block — so an overrun is a policy decision your management makes explicitly, never a surprise on an invoice. Second line — detective monitoring: a cost dashboard showing spend by module, by business unit and by AI engine, current versus prior period, with alert thresholds that notify finance out-of-band by email at a percentage of cap your team chooses, escalating through amber to red states.

Third line — the audit-grade substrate your committee actually cares about: every individual AI generation writes an immutable event to an append-only ledger — who triggered it, which module, which engine, exact token counts and cost in dollars — so spend is reconstructable to the transaction level, attributable to business units via the chargeback configuration, and auditable against the invoice without sampling. In COSO internal-control terms: preventive and detective controls at the first and second lines, with a complete transaction-level evidence trail underneath — which, your committee may note wryly, is more spend governance than most companies apply to their entire cloud bill.

For your committee pack specifically: the recommended standing item is a one-page quarterly view — total spend against caps, allowance utilisation, spend by unit, alert events triggered and management response — which the report builder can assemble as a repeatable export. Ownership sits where your framework puts it: management owns the caps, finance owns the alerts, and your committee sees exceptions and trends. The tool arrives with its own governance pre-plumbed; the committee’s job is to insist the plumbing gets used.