Show the artifact,
not just the outcome story
Traditional case studies are too soft for enterprise AI evaluations. These governed workflow exemplars focus on what reviewers asked for, how KLA intercepted the action, and the exact proof produced afterwards.
Governed workflow exemplars
Each proof pack is intentionally structured around the evaluation questions that appear in real buying committees.
Treasury approval workflow
Global bank
What they demanded
InfoSec demanded hard stops on high-value transfer requests and named approvers for exceptions.
How KLA intercepted
KLA intercepted transfers above threshold, attached account context, and routed the decision to treasury leadership in Slack.
Evidence exported
- Policy hit: `payments.high_value_requires_human`
- Approver identity and approval timestamp
- Signed downstream transfer execution record
{
"action": "wire_transfer.create",
"decision": "requires_human_review",
"policy": "payments.high_value_requires_human",
"approver": "[email protected]",
"lineage_hash": "sha256:4f3a...a18e"
}Clinical support escalation
Regional care network
What they demanded
Clinical governance required human review whenever the copilot moved from summarisation into recommendation territory.
How KLA intercepted
KLA blocked unapproved recommendation delivery, preserved the patient-safe context window, and routed the case to a clinician.
Evidence exported
- Reviewer assignment and decision outcome
- Model and prompt version used in the recommendation path
- Execution lineage showing no unauthorised action reached the patient channel
{
"action": "care_plan.recommend",
"decision": "blocked",
"reason": "clinical_recommendations_require_review",
"review_queue": "clinical-oversight",
"lineage_hash": "sha256:91cd...77be"
}Claims settlement control path
Multiline insurer
What they demanded
Claims leadership wanted AI triage and drafting, but legal required review for settlement recommendations above internal authority limits.
How KLA intercepted
KLA routed recommendations by authority band, captured the reviewer path, and recorded exactly which claim context and policy rules shaped the outcome.
Evidence exported
- Authority threshold and rule evaluation result
- Reviewer identity and settlement disposition
- Signed lineage chain for the claim action and final outbound message
{
"action": "claim.settlement_recommendation",
"decision": "approved",
"authority_band": "review_required",
"reviewer": "[email protected]",
"lineage_hash": "sha256:2c6e...bb90"
}