Explore FlightSim for Your AI
AI Assurance  |  FlightSim

Objective Assurance. Justified Confidence.

FlightSim provides objective, repeatable validation of how ready your AI systems and agents are for their intended use. Get clear scorecards and defined guardrails to understand where your AI performs reliably, where risk increases, and what needs attention before deployment.

Explore FlightSim for Your AI
Clear, measurable results
A scorecard every stakeholder reads
Graded with recommended actions
A letter grade per principle, plus a go or no-go
Internal and third-party
The AI you build and the AI you buy
Objective testing
Built for high-impact AI

Don't just govern your AI. Test it.

Governance should do more than establish policies, controls, and processes. It should provide assurance that AI performs as intended. When the stakes are high, that means having objective evidence of how your system performs in practice.

Not a checklist. An AI pen test. FlightSim operates like a pre-deployment AI pen test. Using real data augmented with synthetic scenarios and simulations, it applies an opinionated battery of statistical and adversarial tests against the system's intended use, then pushes it into conditions it has never been asked to handle to identify where performance degrades and risks require attention.

Explore FlightSim for Your AI
Monitaur FlightSim Report document mockup with summary, system use case, score card and per-principle letter grades

From “we think” to “we know.”

Policies matter. Controls matter. Documentation matters. But for high-impact AI, they aren't the end of the story. FlightSim provides an automated, objective opinion informed by Monitaur’s expertise.

Bring us a high-impact AI system you need greater confidence in. We'll work with you to understand the use case, define what needs to be evaluated, and determine whether FlightSim is the right assessment approach.

Built to be easy

AI risk isn't abstract. A model that performs well in one environment can behave very differently against another organization's data, users, and operating conditions. So FlightSim tests your system in your context, and it does that without turning into a big project.

Keep control of your data

No source code or model weights required

We bring the scenarios

A limited dataset doesn't limit the assessment

BLACK-BOX TESTING

We test from the outside in

Test what your own team can't

We help you test sensitive data

Bring a system and a description of what it's supposed to do. We handle the rest. No need to design it, maintain it, or have your data science team standing by to interpret it.

Standard validation stops where the
risk starts.

Finding failure isn’t the end goal; identifying risk is. By mapping safe operating boundaries, FlightSim helps you understand the conditions in which your system can be trusted to do its job and where risks require attention.

With FlightSim you learn:

  • Where it becomes fragile
  • Whether it is fit for its intended use
  • Where the system performs as expected
  • Where risks or weaknesses require attention
Cutout photo of a smiling man in a light blue shirt holding a tablet, with a coral glow behind him

What we evaluate

The Principles Behind Every FlightSim Test

Every FlightSim test maps to Monitaur’s principles of well-built AI systems and aligns with guidance found in the NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001, and EU AI Act. The same principles run through risk quantification, reporting, and objective validation, so one language carries across your whole program.

Monitaur FlightSim Report document mockup with summary, system use case, score card and per-principle letter grades

Reliable

Does it hold up when inputs shift, degrade, or arrive in ways nobody planned for?

Secure

Can it be jailbroken, coerced, or made to leak sensitive information?

Bias

Does it perform consistently across relevant populations and conditions?

Understandable

Can the results be explained, reproduced, and owned by people who didn't build it?

Performant

Does the system meet its requirements in the environment where it actually runs?

SOC 2 TYPE II · NAIC AIS PROGRAM · NIST AI RMF · ISO/IEC 42001 · EU AI ACT

You get a FlightSim Report: a letter grade for every principle, the safe operating region for the system, and a clear recommendation on whether it's ready for production. It does all of this while also providing evidence you can use to satisfy your AI Governance requirements.

One assessment, across very different AI

How can the same assessment evaluate an underwriting model and a customer-facing chatbot? The short answer is that FlightSim doesn't test domains. It tests against the two things every AI system has: a stated intended use, and the principles above.

Concentric rings target icon

Anchored
to purpose

Scored against what
it was built to do

Every test is evaluated against the system's intended use and defined requirements, not against a domain rulebook. That's what lets the same battery say something meaningful about an underwriting model and a claims assistant.

Concentric rings target icon

Architecture-
Agnostic

Inputs and outputs,
nothing more

Because FlightSim probes behavior rather than architecture, it doesn't care how the system was built or who built it. The same method applies to a statistical model, a generative application, and a vendor tool you can't see inside.

Concentric rings target icon

Statistical,
not editorial

Methods that
generalize

Monte Carlo simulation, non-parametric statistics, and comparison against baseline surrogates. Where a language model is used inside a test, results are aggregated across several independent models so no single evaluator's bias drives the grade.

Four questions you should be able to answer.

Is this AI actually ready?

The FlightSim Report ends with a recommendation: ready for production, or not yet. You get the grade behind it and the residual concerns that came with it.

The FlightSim Report answers whether your model performs the way you thought it would. You get the grade behind it and the residual concerns that came with it.

The FlightSim Report shows how your model responds outside the scenarios you expected. You see where it holds up, where it breaks down, and the residual concerns that come with it.

The FlightSim Report gives you the evidence behind its recommendation. You get the results, the grade behind them, and the residual concerns that came with it.

We didn't study this problem.

We solved it first, in the hardest industry to solve it in. Monitaur has been doing AI governance and assurance in insurance since before most of the category existed, in an industry with the least room for error, under regulators who actually examine. That experience isn't a services layer bolted on after the sale. It's built into the product: the principles, the test battery, the control library, and the report your stakeholders read. And it's why the strongest endorsement of Monitaur comes from the people who actually use it.

Forrester's only Customer Favorite

In the Forrester Wave™: AI Governance Solutions, Monitaur is the category's only vendor named a Customer Favorite. That isn't an analyst's opinion of a roadmap. It's customers' opinion of the actual experience.*

Activated in 90 days

A Fortune 200 insurer's AI governance program had been sitting inside a $500K, six-month consulting engagement with nothing operational to show for it. Monitaur got it moving in 90 days. They renewed for three more years.

* In the Forrester Wave™: AI Governance Solutions, Monitaur is the category's only vendor named a Customer Favorite. That isn't an analyst's opinion of a roadmap. It's customers' opinion of the actual experience.

“FlightSim was very easy to use… [I was] very surprised at the speed of execution and how easy it was to connect.”

— Data Science Executive, Fortune 100 insurer