Proceed
What can move forward with confidence.
AI Behavioral Intelligence
The most dangerous AI failure isn't the wrong answer. It's the answer that sounds right enough that someone acts on it.
Morum AI runs a fixed-scope diagnostic that tests whether your AI's reasoning actually holds up before the business relies on it. Not a benchmark. Not a governance review. A pressure test of the decision path, delivered in ten to fourteen business days.
Founder-delivered. Two to three diagnostics per month.
Looking for a narrower scope? See the Flash Review.
Failure patterns identified in production
- Policy boilerplate where account-specific data was available and ignored
- Hedging where the data supported a clear answer
- Confidence that outlasted its own evidence by two full turns
- A silent handoff disguised as deference
- Specific facts replaced with generic safety language
- Escalation used as deferral, not as judgment
- Symmetric framing on an asymmetric question
- A recommendation walked back into ambiguity
- Safety language that diluted a defensible recommendation
- Same confident tone, different (and weaker) factual ground
Why this is different
Red-teaming tests whether your AI can be broken. This diagnostic tests whether it can be trusted. Those are different failure surfaces, and most organizations have only tested one.
Individual failures are easy to spot. Structural patterns across a workflow, the ones that compound silently across turns, sessions, and decisions, are not. The diagnostic doesn't find one bad output. It maps the failure surface your team is too close to see.
The full methodology, including the eight-stage reliance chain, additional failure categories, and how this approach differs from standard AI testing, is detailed on the methodology page.
View methodology →See the pattern
Watch a failure happen in real time.
The evidence stays the same. The confidence changes. Three turns from hedge to recommendation, with nothing new to justify it.
Authority laundering — one of the behavioral failure patterns the diagnostic is built to find. Learn how it works →
Core offer
The AI Reasoning Integrity Diagnostic.
A defined-scope diagnostic of one AI-assisted workflow, delivered in 10–14 business days. The engagement tests the workflow under realistic reliance pressure, then maps where the AI behavior supports the decisions it influences.
The diagnostic answers three questions directly:
- What can safely rely on the AI now?
- Where should authority be restricted?
- What must change before broader reliance?
Restrict
Where reliance needs limits, review, or controls.
Remediate
What must change before broader reliance.
The deliverable
Decision-Risk Findings Brief
A concise executive document built for the board, the operating team, and the people who have to act on what the diagnostic finds. Every finding is evidence-weighted and written to close a decision, not open a discussion.
- Executive Risk Snapshot. A one-page summary of what the diagnostic found and what it means for the business.
- Reliance Chain Analysis. Where AI enters the decision path, who relies on it, and what misplaced reliance costs.
- Decision-Signal Integrity Review. Whether the AI output preserves the signal the business needs, or whether the reasoning drifts under pressure.
- Source-Weighting Delta. Where the AI overweights general context and underweights account-specific evidence.
- Decision Authority Boundary. Where the AI should recommend, where it should escalate, and where it should stop, mapped against what the workflow currently allows.
- Remediation Direction. Control patches, retrieval repairs, guardrails, and regression tests, ranked by impact and timeline.
Post-engagement review
Sixty days after delivery, the engagement includes a follow-up review to address implementation questions arising from the brief, surface any new behavioral exposure that has emerged, and assess whether the controls put in place are operating as expected.
Why external · Founder-led
The reasoning layer doesn't test itself.
Built for organizations in financial services, healthcare, legal, and regulated operations where AI output enters audit-bearing decisions.
Tom Dougherty · Founder, Morum AI — LinkedIn
The specialists who build the workflow are too close to assess it objectively. The executives who fund it are too far from the output to catch where the reasoning breaks. The experienced operators who used to sit in the middle and catch what looked right but wasn't are the role most organizations spent the last fifteen years optimizing away.
That gap is where I work. 24 years in management consulting, culminating as a Managing Director at Accenture, taught me one thing that applies directly to AI behavioral integrity: the most expensive failures are the ones that pass every surface-level check.
The diagnostic isn't a technical evaluation. It's a judgment problem. It requires operational knowledge of how models behave under reliance pressure, not how they perform on benchmarks, but what happens when a customer, agent, or executive is about to act on what the model said.
When you engage Morum AI, you get me. Not an account team, not an associate, not a relationship layer between you and the findings.
Former Managing Director, Accenture · 24 years in management consulting · AI behavioral integrity since 2024
Commercial path
Fixed scope. Firm pricing. No bloat.
Engagements outside these tiers are scoped separately, not discounted.
AI Reliance Flash Review
$12,500
Forty-eight to seventy-two hour review of one narrow workflow or output set. For buyers with a defined question who need a directional read on a specific timeline. Limited availability, suitability confirmed during intake.
AI Reasoning Integrity Diagnostic
$25,000
Ten to fourteen business day diagnostic of one defined AI workflow. Decision-Risk Findings Brief delivered with executive readout. Includes a sixty-day follow-up review for implementation questions and emerging behavioral surfaces.
AI Behavioral Integrity Mapping Sprint
$55,000
Multi-workflow assessment for organizations with broader AI exposure, higher-stakes outcomes, or board-level review requirements. Typical scope: two to four interconnected workflows over twenty business days. Includes follow-up reviews at sixty and one hundred twenty days.
Commercial terms
Pricing is firm and tied to scope. Payment is ACH or wire, due on receipt of invoice.
Flash Review: full payment upfront. Diagnostic: 50% upfront, 50% on delivery. Sprint: 50% upfront, 25% at first checkpoint, 25% on delivery.
Engagements begin once the upfront payment is received.
Pressure-test the reasoning behind the answer before the business depends on it.
This is what I do: test one workflow, in depth, against the failure patterns that benchmark testing misses. The output is a brief your board can act on.
Not ready for a full diagnostic? The Flash Review gives you a directional read on one workflow in 48–72 hours.