Access governance

Policy-Based Access Mediation

A governed access layer that evaluates every sensitive request against identity, device posture, role, mission context, data sensitivity, and current risk state before permitting, restricting, denying, or escalating for human review.

DocumentedApply for Grant Access

Mission problem

Mission-driven organizations often rely on fragmented identity stacks where high-impact access decisions happen implicitly and are difficult to audit.

Who it protects

· NGOs
· Institutes
· Think tanks
· Advanced R&D labs

Sensitive assets involved

· Beneficiary and donor records
· Cross-border program data
· Embargoed research
· Unpublished lab findings

Required inputs

· Identity signals
· Device posture
· Assigned role and mission context
· Data sensitivity classification
· Current risk state

Connected systems

· Existing IdP
· Directory services
· Application authorization
· Data platforms

How the service works

Requests are intercepted at the overlay, never replacing the underlying application logic.
A policy engine evaluates request signals against documented, versioned rules.
Low-risk permitted actions proceed; ambiguous or high-impact actions are routed to a human reviewer.
Every decision is written to the evidence chain.

Human-review points

· Elevated privilege requests
· Access to restricted classifications
· Requests originating from unusual context

Evidence produced

· Signed policy decision record
· Reviewer identity and rationale
· Rollback token

Service interlocks

· Sensitive Data Classification and Routing
· Evidence-Grade Audit and Provenance Capture
· Secure Workflow Orchestration with Human Review Gates

Policy-Based Access Decision Lattice

Identity signal

Verified

safe

Device posture

Unmanaged

review

Role

Field coordinator

safe

Location

New jurisdiction

review

Data sensitivity

Beneficiary export

escalate

Current risk state

Elevated

escalate

Permit

Restrict

Deny

Escalate

Illustrative: high-impact exceptions are never auto-approved.

Illustrative scenario

Illustrative: field coordinator requests beneficiary export

A coordinator authenticates from an unmanaged device in a new jurisdiction and requests a bulk beneficiary export. The overlay evaluates the request, restricts scope, and routes the export for supervisor review before any data leaves the system.

Deployment prerequisites

· An existing identity provider or directory
· Documented data-sensitivity taxonomy
· Named reviewers with defined authority

Beneficiary responsibilities

· Maintain reviewer rosters
· Ratify policy changes
· Respond to review requests within agreed windows

Limitations and non-claimsRequires validation

· Decisions are only as accurate as the signals and policies provided.
· The overlay does not replace the organization's identity provider.
· High-impact exceptions are never auto-approved.

Frequently asked

Does this replace our identity provider?

No. Policy-Based Access Mediation is designed to sit alongside your existing identity provider as a governed decision layer.

Can policies be tuned per program?

Yes. Policies are versioned and can be scoped by program, mission context, or data class.

Does it work in conflict-zone or low-connectivity field settings?

Yes. The mediation layer supports cached policy evaluation and deferred evidence sync for constrained field environments.

How are emergency access requests handled?

Break-glass paths are configurable with mandatory review, elevated logging, and automatic post-hoc ratification.

Delivery model

Onboarding → Policy Definition → Controlled Rollout → Steady-State Assurance. Every phase produces named evidence artifacts.

4-Phase Delivery Timeline

Phase 1
Onboarding
Read-only integration with the existing identity provider, directory, and target applications. Discovery of current access surfaces and shadow permissions.
- · Access surface inventory
- · Signal map
Phase 2
Policy Definition
Documented, versioned rules co-authored with the beneficiary. Reviewer rosters, risk thresholds, and escalation paths are ratified by the executive sponsor.
- · Policy pack v1
- · Reviewer roster
Phase 3
Controlled Rollout
Shadow-mode evaluation first: decisions are logged but not enforced. Enforcement is enabled per program, per data class, on an agreed schedule.
- · Shadow decision log
- · Rollout ratification
Phase 4
Steady-State Assurance
Ongoing tuning, drift review, reviewer coverage checks, and quarterly evidence packs for stakeholders.
- · Quarterly access review
- · Exception register

Beneficiary scenarios

Illustrative

Human Rights NGO protecting source identities in a conflict zone

A field coordinator on an unmanaged device in a newly restricted jurisdiction requests bulk export of a beneficiary registry. The overlay evaluates identity, device posture, jurisdiction, and data sensitivity; restricts scope to a de-identified subset; and routes the full export for supervisor review with a rollback token.

Illustrative

Cross-border research collaboration under embargo

A visiting researcher requests read access to an embargoed dataset. Policy detects the embargo class and jurisdictional mismatch, permits redacted metadata, and escalates the full request to the principal investigator and compliance reviewer with a linked evidence record.

Engineering detail

Integration model+

API overlay mediation in front of the existing IdP, directory, and application authorization surfaces. No rip-and-replace. Read-mostly by default; enforcement is opt-in per surface.

Data flows+

Requests flow: caller → application → mediation interceptor → policy engine → decision (permit / restrict / deny / escalate) → downstream system or review queue. Every hop is written to the evidence chain.

Cryptographic components+

Decision records are signed with per-tenant signing keys; sensitive signals are hashed at capture; secrets are held in the beneficiary's key management with envelope encryption.

Logging architecture+

Structured, append-only decision log with reviewer identity, rationale, policy version, signal snapshot, and rollback token. Linked into the tamper-evident evidence chain.

Deployment prerequisites+

An existing identity provider, a documented data-sensitivity taxonomy, named reviewers with defined authority, and an executive sponsor for policy ratification.

Operational limits+

Decisions reflect the quality of provided signals and policies. The overlay does not replace the IdP or the application's own authorization logic; it governs the request path.

Governance model

Approval gates

· Policy version publication requires executive sponsor ratification.
· Elevated-privilege requests require a named reviewer.
· Requests spanning jurisdictions require compliance reviewer sign-off.
· Break-glass paths require post-hoc ratification within an agreed window.

Exception handling

Every exception is recorded with reviewer identity, rationale, expiry, and linked evidence. Exceptions never auto-renew.

Rollback paths

Executed actions carry rollback tokens where the downstream system supports reversal. Rollback attempts are logged whether or not they succeed.

Beneficiary control boundaries

The beneficiary owns policies, reviewer rosters, and the underlying identity provider. The overlay operates within scopes the beneficiary ratifies.

Evidence and reporting outputs

· Signed policy decision record
· Reviewer identity and rationale
· Signal snapshot at decision time
· Policy version reference
· Rollback token
· Exception register entry
· Shadow-mode decision log (rollout phase)
· Quarterly access review pack

Grant scope

Included

· Integration with existing IdP and up to an agreed number of applications
· Policy authoring workshops and versioned policy pack
· Reviewer onboarding and shadow-mode rollout
· Steady-state tuning and quarterly evidence packs

Beneficiary responsibilities

· Maintain reviewer rosters and respond within agreed windows
· Ratify policy changes through the executive sponsor
· Provide the data-sensitivity taxonomy

Timeline

Typical: 4-phase delivery over 8–14 weeks depending on scope, followed by continuous steady-state assurance.

Explicit exclusions

· Replacement of the beneficiary's identity provider
· Custom application development
· Legal interpretation of jurisdictional obligations (routed to counsel)

Portfolio interlock

Portfolio Interlock Web

Predecessors, successors, and operational interlocks across the portfolio.

Natural predecessors

· Sensitive Data Classification and Routing

Natural successors

· Secure Workflow Orchestration with Human Review Gates
· Evidence-Grade Audit and Provenance Capture

Operational interlocks

· Cross-System Threat Anomaly Detection
· Compliance and Jurisdictional Mediation

Risks and non-claims

Requires validation

· Policies authored without adequate context can under- or over-restrict; iterative shadow-mode rollout mitigates this.
· This service supports informed decision-making. It does not certify legal compliance.
· Reviewer fatigue is a real risk; reviewer rosters and rotation are part of steady-state assurance.

Discuss this service in your context

All services Grant access