SecondMark position
The most useful first questions concern scope and reliance: what decision needs support, what claim must be examined, and what system state is actually in view.
The examination is bounded to defined claims, a versioned system, and evidence that can be traced to the state under review. Any material exclusion or uncertainty remains visible in the conclusion.
Core questions
What the examination needs to establish.
- 01
Is SecondMark a code auditor?
- 02
Does an opinion certify that failure is impossible?
- 03
Can AI-engineered software be assured?
- 04
When should an engagement begin?
Evidence model
Evidence is assembled around the claim—not the folder structure.
System and ownership records
Collected, attributed, challenged, and connected to the exact system boundary under examination.
Architecture, control, and runtime material
Collected, attributed, challenged, and connected to the exact system boundary under examination.
Known incidents and limitations
Collected, attributed, challenged, and connected to the exact system boundary under examination.
Decision context and required claims
Collected, attributed, challenged, and connected to the exact system boundary under examination.
Intended outcome
A concise basis for deciding whether SecondMark is the right assurance partner for a consequential system.
Professional boundary
What an opinion does—and does not—mean.
It provides
A traceable independent conclusion on defined claims, grounded in the evidence and system state examined.
It does not provide
A guarantee that failure is impossible, a permanent certification, or a conclusion beyond the stated scope and validity conditions.