About
The AIBRIDGE42 PHILOSOPHY
What Automation Can't Replace.
OUR APPROACH
AI governance isn't a separate system, it's an extension of what you've already built. Organizations with mature ISO 27001 implementations have spent years developing risk assessment methodologies, control frameworks, documentation practices, and audit readiness. The conventional approach to ISO 42001 asks them to rebuild these capabilities from scratch for AI.
AIBridge42 takes a different path.
We help organizations identify where their existing controls already satisfy ISO 42001 requirements, where controls need extension to address AI-specific risks, and where genuinely new capabilities must be developed. This integration approach validated by Oxford Saïd Business School research, ISO guidance, and industry practitioners at Intel and Microsoft accelerates certification while reducing cost and complexity.
The result: AI governance that feels like a natural extension of your management system, not a bolted-on afterthought.
THE THREE GAPS
Integration over Recreation.
GRC platforms like Vanta and Drata excel at evidence collection and control
monitoring. But ISO 42001 certification requires something they can't automate:
judgment.
(01)
The Context Gap
ISO 42001 requires more than checking boxes, it demands qualitative assessment of whether your controls are adequate for your specific AI systems, use cases, and risk profile. Unlike ISO 27001's well-established control patterns, AI governance requires evaluating novel risks: model drift, training data bias, algorithmic transparency, and human oversight mechanisms. Each organization's AI footprint is unique: a customer service chatbot carries different risks than a credit scoring model or a medical diagnostic tool. Auditors expect you to demonstrate not just that controls exist, but that they're proportionate to the actual risks your AI systems create. GRC platforms provide templates and structure; what they can't provide is the contextual judgment to determine whether your risk assessment captures what matters, whether your controls address your real exposure, or whether your documentation tells a coherent story. That interpretation layer: translating generic requirements into your specific context, is where certification success or failure is determined.
(01)
The Context Gap
ISO 42001 requires more than checking boxes, it demands qualitative assessment of whether your controls are adequate for your specific AI systems, use cases, and risk profile. Unlike ISO 27001's well-established control patterns, AI governance requires evaluating novel risks: model drift, training data bias, algorithmic transparency, and human oversight mechanisms. Each organization's AI footprint is unique: a customer service chatbot carries different risks than a credit scoring model or a medical diagnostic tool. Auditors expect you to demonstrate not just that controls exist, but that they're proportionate to the actual risks your AI systems create. GRC platforms provide templates and structure; what they can't provide is the contextual judgment to determine whether your risk assessment captures what matters, whether your controls address your real exposure, or whether your documentation tells a coherent story. That interpretation layer: translating generic requirements into your specific context, is where certification success or failure is determined.
(02)
The Content Gap
Platforms offer empty templates. Nicely formatted documents with placeholder text waiting to be filled. But organizations don't fail audits because they lack templates; they fail because they lack tailored, in-context content. ISO 42001 certification requires actual policy language that reflects your AI governance decisions, risk assessment narratives that demonstrate genuine analysis of your specific systems, and control descriptions that explain how your organization actually operates. An auditor reviewing your AI policy doesn't want to see generic statements about "responsible AI". They want evidence that you've thought through how your organization develops, deploys, and monitors AI systems. They want risk registers that reflect your actual threat landscape, not copy-pasted examples from a framework document. Writing this content requires understanding both the standard's requirements and your organization's reality: how decisions get made, where AI systems touch sensitive processes, and what controls are genuinely in place versus aspirational. Someone has to bridge that gap between template structure and audit-ready substance. And that someone needs to understand what auditors are actually looking for.
(02)
The Content Gap
Platforms offer empty templates. Nicely formatted documents with placeholder text waiting to be filled. But organizations don't fail audits because they lack templates; they fail because they lack tailored, in-context content. ISO 42001 certification requires actual policy language that reflects your AI governance decisions, risk assessment narratives that demonstrate genuine analysis of your specific systems, and control descriptions that explain how your organization actually operates. An auditor reviewing your AI policy doesn't want to see generic statements about "responsible AI". They want evidence that you've thought through how your organization develops, deploys, and monitors AI systems. They want risk registers that reflect your actual threat landscape, not copy-pasted examples from a framework document. Writing this content requires understanding both the standard's requirements and your organization's reality: how decisions get made, where AI systems touch sensitive processes, and what controls are genuinely in place versus aspirational. Someone has to bridge that gap between template structure and audit-ready substance. And that someone needs to understand what auditors are actually looking for.
(03)
The Last Mile Gap
Certification ultimately depends on auditor interviews and evidence review. Your documentation can be flawless, your controls perfectly designed, but if leadership cannot articulate why decisions were made, how risks were assessed, and what governance processes are actually followed, auditors will notice. ISO 42001 audits are not purely documentary exercises. Auditors probe for understanding: Does the AI governance committee actually meet? Can the risk owner explain the rationale behind control selections? Does the AIMS manager understand how AI system changes trigger reassessment? These conversations reveal whether governance exists on paper or in practice. Preparing leadership to speak confidently about their AI governance approach, anticipating the questions auditors will ask, and ensuring answers align with documented evidence requires human expertise. It requires someone who has sat on both sides of the audit table and understands what auditors are listening for. GRC platforms cannot coach your executives, run mock interviews, or identify the gaps between what your documentation says and what your team will say under questioning. That last mile between documentation and certification is where human judgment makes the difference.
(03)
The Last Mile Gap
Certification ultimately depends on auditor interviews and evidence review. Your documentation can be flawless, your controls perfectly designed, but if leadership cannot articulate why decisions were made, how risks were assessed, and what governance processes are actually followed, auditors will notice. ISO 42001 audits are not purely documentary exercises. Auditors probe for understanding: Does the AI governance committee actually meet? Can the risk owner explain the rationale behind control selections? Does the AIMS manager understand how AI system changes trigger reassessment? These conversations reveal whether governance exists on paper or in practice. Preparing leadership to speak confidently about their AI governance approach, anticipating the questions auditors will ask, and ensuring answers align with documented evidence requires human expertise. It requires someone who has sat on both sides of the audit table and understands what auditors are listening for. GRC platforms cannot coach your executives, run mock interviews, or identify the gaps between what your documentation says and what your team will say under questioning. That last mile between documentation and certification is where human judgment makes the difference.
THE BRIDGE BUILDER
Helping ISO 27001-certified organizations extend their security foundation
to achieve ISO 42001 AI governance certification.
Built by an auditor, for compliance teams navigating the path
from information security to AI governance.
(04)
At a Glance
15 | Years in Financial Services, Compliance & Governance, 2 | Lead Auditor Certifications (ISO 27001 & ISO 42001), 3 | Languages (English, French, Italian), 1 I EU AI Act Professional Certification, 3 I Sectors (Finance, Pharma, Technology)
(04)
At a Glance
15 | Years in Financial Services, Compliance & Governance, 2 | Lead Auditor Certifications (ISO 27001 & ISO 42001), 3 | Languages (English, French, Italian), 1 I EU AI Act Professional Certification, 3 I Sectors (Finance, Pharma, Technology)
(05)
A Few Words About Vanessa
Vanessa Siegenthaler is the founder of AIBridge42, a free resource library helping ISO 27001-certified organizations navigate their path to ISO 42001 certification. With 15 years of experience in institutional finance at RBC Capital Markets, serving clients including BNP Paribas, Julius Baer, and Deutsche Bank, Vanessa brings deep expertise in translating complex regulatory requirements into practical governance frameworks. She holds dual Lead Auditor certifications in both ISO 27001 (Information Security) and ISO 42001 (AI Management Systems), along with EU AI Act Professional certification and GDPR expertise. This unique combination allows her to see both sides of the bridge: the security foundation organizations have already built, and the AI governance destination they need to reach. Currently serving as Senior Auditor for an accredited certification body, Vanessa conducts ISO 27001, ISO 27701, and ISO 42001 audits for tier-1 clients. This front-line experience informs her understanding of what auditors actually look for and how organizations can prepare effectively.
(05)
A Few Words About Vanessa
Vanessa Siegenthaler is the founder of AIBridge42, a free resource library helping ISO 27001-certified organizations navigate their path to ISO 42001 certification. With 15 years of experience in institutional finance at RBC Capital Markets, serving clients including BNP Paribas, Julius Baer, and Deutsche Bank, Vanessa brings deep expertise in translating complex regulatory requirements into practical governance frameworks. She holds dual Lead Auditor certifications in both ISO 27001 (Information Security) and ISO 42001 (AI Management Systems), along with EU AI Act Professional certification and GDPR expertise. This unique combination allows her to see both sides of the bridge: the security foundation organizations have already built, and the AI governance destination they need to reach. Currently serving as Senior Auditor for an accredited certification body, Vanessa conducts ISO 27001, ISO 27701, and ISO 42001 audits for tier-1 clients. This front-line experience informs her understanding of what auditors actually look for and how organizations can prepare effectively.