Expanding generative AI use
Clarify use cases, input boundaries, output use, human review, records, and responsibility boundaries.
Service Overview
Turn ambiguous, complex issues into something you can decide and act on.
Fragment Practice is an independent advisory practice. When AI, security, and governance issues arrive mixed together, it separates them, clarifies what to decide and who is responsible, and leaves material a team can use — then act on.
A one-page overview for first discussions, internal sharing, referrals, and early scoping. Mainly across AI governance, security, and technology risk.
Best-fit situations
For initiatives where the topic is moving, but decision criteria and review structure are still unclear.
Best suited when AI adoption, security requirements, governance / control, third-party review, or stakeholder explanation is already in motion, but decision points, review criteria, responsibility boundaries, and handoff items are not yet easy to discuss or approve.
Structuring AI usage rules and governance
Turn restrictions, review conditions, approval logic, education points, and FAQs into material that stakeholders can explain and use.
Turning security requirements into review points
Translate requirements, guidelines, controls, evidence expectations, and operating implications into reviewable material.
Clarifying responsibility boundaries and reviewers
Clarify who decides, who reviews, who records, who explains, and who owns residual risk.
Explaining options to management or stakeholders
Prepare material that explains choices, risks, decision points, responsibility, and next actions.
Preparing handoff material for the next phase
Organize assumptions, open questions, review comments, and handoff items for later design, implementation, or operations teams.
What the work structures
Convert mixed issues into decision material and review structure.
The work separates issues, clarifies review points and responsibility boundaries, and turns the result into material that can be used in meetings, reports, reviews, roadmaps, and handoffs.
Clarify the current situation
Review the issue, stakeholders, existing material, business context, decision timeline, meeting cadence, and what remains unclear.
Structure decisions, review points, and responsibility
Separate use cases, assumptions, requirements, risks, open questions, reviewers, responsibility boundaries, and handoff items.
Leave usable material
Create material for management discussion, stakeholder explanation, review, roadmap planning, scoped advisory, or next-phase handoff.
Problem
What often remains unclear before decisions or rollout
Even when an initiative is already moving, the decision criteria, review structure, and handoff conditions may still be weak.
- Which AI use cases should be treated as low, medium, or high risk
- Who reviews outputs, approves use, keeps records, or owns residual risk
- Which security requirements, internal rules, or controls matter and what evidence is needed
- What should be decided now and what should move into a later roadmap
- How responsibilities should be divided across internal teams, vendors, and external specialists
Support
What Fragment Practice helps structure
Support focuses on upstream structuring, review points, responsibility boundaries, and decision material, not taking over implementation or operations.
- AI governance, use rules, and decision criteria — input / output boundaries, human review, approval, and records
- AI-enabled work and human–AI role design — who acts, decides, reviews, consults, and hands off across people, AI, automation, internal teams, and external support
- Security governance, control, and technology risk — requirements, controls, review points, and evidence
- Cross-cutting: management and stakeholder explanation, decision material, ongoing operation, and handoff to the next phase
- Scoped review comments, advisory notes, and open-question lists
Outputs
Representative material left behind
Outputs vary by context, but the goal is to leave material that remains useful after meetings, reviews, and first-stage decisions.
- Issue-structuring memo
- Management or stakeholder brief
- AI governance and responsibility-boundary map
- AI use-case and review-point matrix
- Security requirement / review mapping memo
- Third-party review comments
- Roadmap and next-action note
- Scoped advisory notes
Boundary
What this support does not replace
The engagement boundary is kept clear so support does not drift into undefined execution ownership.
- Not implementation ownership or system development
- Not resident PMO or day-to-day progress management
- Not continuous operations, BPO, or always-on response
- Not legal judgment, audit assurance, or certification
- Not a replacement for internal owners or final management decisions
- Not 24/7 response, immediate-response standby, or unlimited advisory communication
Engagement options
Three ways to engage. Start with the smallest that fits.
From-prices for new engagements (excl. tax); existing agreements are unaffected. Final scope and fees are designed by outputs, review volume, meeting cadence, stakeholders, response expectations, and responsibility boundaries.
Initial structuring session
From ¥300,000 (excl. tax)
A focused entry point for separating issues, stakeholders, decision points, review needs, responsibility boundaries, and next checks.
- Early issue framing
- Before internal reporting
- Before deciding on a larger engagement
Decision-material sprint
From ¥1,200,000 (excl. tax)
A bounded sprint for turning existing materials and interviews into decision material, review points, responsibility boundaries, and handoff material.
- AI or security governance structuring
- Security requirement and control review
- Management or stakeholder explanation material
- Third-party review of existing material
Scoped advisory support
From ¥600,000 / month (excl. tax)
Recurring advisory support for document review, issue structuring, decision-material updates, and pre-meeting or stakeholder-explanation checks, with cadence and boundaries defined in advance.
- Monthly or biweekly review support
- External advisory role with clear scope
- Repeated decision or review cycles
Selected experience
Representative support patterns across AI, security, governance, and review work.
Client names and project details are generalized. The focus is on what was clarified and how the advisory pattern can transfer across company sizes and contexts.
AI governance and decision-material structuring for a financial institution
Clarified use cases, input information, human review, approval, recordkeeping, and management-facing decision material for expanding generative AI use.
Operating model review for AI-enabled security services
Structured target users, service value, AI use scope, external partners, provider responsibilities, cost structure, and viability conditions.
Security governance, internal regulations, controls, and vendor management
Structured security requirements, vendor assessment, education, operating flows, incident response, and IT-BCP into practical review material.
Third-party review of security policy and risk assessment material
Reviewed existing security policy, risk assessment material, control assumptions, residual risks, open questions, and next actions before later-phase work.
Advisor profile
Yasuhiro Shinsho / Fragment Practice LLC
Yasuhiro Shinsho is an independent advisor supporting upstream issue structuring, review, decision-material creation, responsibility-boundary clarification, and handoff-ready next actions across AI governance, security governance, governance / control, and technology risk.
He previously worked at BIPROGY, KPMG Consulting, Nomura Research Institute, and NRI Secure. His work has crossed system development, cybersecurity, IT risk, governance, cloud and AI risk review, and management-facing explanation material. He is based in Takamatsu, Japan.
Next step
Start by confirming the right scope of involvement.
Even when the request is not yet fully defined, the first step is to review the current situation, available materials, expected outputs, stakeholders, decision timeline, review target and volume, response expectations, and expected utilization, then identify the appropriate format of support.
Helpful information for the first discussion
- Current situation
- Available materials
- Expected outputs
- Stakeholders / meeting cadence
- Decision timeline
- Review target / volume
- Response expectations / expected utilization