Description

A focused course, tailored for you

GRC at Platform Scale: Integrity Governance That Holds

Build the documentation, testing cadence, and cross-functional accountability structure that survives regulatory examination.

Integrity governance at a major platform sits at the intersection of trust-and-safety operations, legal exposure, and live regulatory scrutiny. The programme exists. The question is whether its evidence layer holds when an examiner asks for it.

$199 one-time

Tailored to your situation. Access within 24 hours. 30-day money-back.

Includes a hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, generated for your specific situation.

Why this course

Regulators examining platforms under the DSA, GDPR enforcement actions, and FTC consent decree frameworks are not satisfied with policy documents. They want testing logs showing that controls ran on schedule, remediation files showing that findings closed, and a risk narrative that a board member signed. GRC professionals in integrity roles often own the policy and the framework but inherit a documentation gap that only surfaces under examination. Rebuilding it retroactively under a live enforcement timeline is the single most painful way to learn what the structure needed to contain.

What you walk away with

Design a regulatory evidence package that satisfies DSA Article 34 risk assessment requirements and FTC consent-decree monitoring obligations in one consolidated structure.
Build a quarterly testing cadence log with closure evidence that an examiner can trace from finding through to remediation sign-off.
Construct a cross-functional accountability matrix that assigns GRC ownership for integrity controls across policy, engineering, and operations teams.
Write a board-level risk narrative that translates integrity programme status into language a general counsel and a non-executive director both trust.
Run a pre-examination dry-run walkthrough using the frameworks in the course against your current documentation state.
Establish a re-examination readiness cadence so that documentation gaps surface internally before they surface under scrutiny.

The 12 modules

Module 1. What Regulators Actually Read

Examiners under DSA, GDPR enforcement, and FTC consent frameworks do not start with policy documents. They start with evidence artefacts: testing logs, closure records, and accountability assignments. This module maps the specific artefacts each regulatory regime looks for first and identifies the documentation gaps that cause integrity programmes to fail structured walkthroughs within minutes of the examination beginning.

Module 2. DSA Article 34 Risk Assessment: What Holds Up

Article 34 requires systemic risk assessments covering societal and fundamental rights impacts. Most platforms have a document that satisfies the title. Far fewer have one that satisfies a regulator's follow-up questions about methodology, stakeholder input, and update cadence. This module builds the risk assessment structure that answers those follow-up questions before they are asked, including the evidence trail that shows the assessment was actually conducted rather than retrofitted.

Module 3. FTC Consent Decree Evidence Architecture

Consent decree monitoring requires a documented testing programme with scheduled runs, findings, remediation assignments, and closure evidence. This module walks through the architecture for a monitoring evidence file that a third-party assessor can navigate independently, including the cadence structure, the finding-to-closure chain, and the escalation record when findings miss their remediation deadline.

Module 4. GDPR Enforcement: What the DPA Looks For

Data protection authorities examining platforms focus on accountability evidence: records of processing activities, data protection impact assessments with follow-through documentation, and records showing that privacy-by-design obligations were operationalised rather than asserted. This module builds the documentation layer that demonstrates accountability rather than just claiming it, with specific attention to the cross-border processing and legitimate interest assessment requirements that surface most often in platform-specific enforcement.

Module 5. Cross-Functional Accountability Without the Caveat

Integrity GRC at platform scale involves controls owned by policy teams, engineering squads, and operations functions that do not report to GRC. Accountability matrices that are built once and forgotten collapse under examination when the engineer who owned a control left the organisation six months ago. This module builds a living accountability structure with named owners, documented handoff protocols, and a quarterly verification cycle that the GRC function can run without needing cross-functional cooperation to do the verification itself.

Module 6. Testing Cadence Design: Scheduled, Logged, Defensible

A testing programme that runs irregularly signals that controls were aspirational rather than operational. This module designs a testing cadence scoped to the highest-risk integrity controls, schedules runs on a calendar that GRC owns and can evidence, and produces a log format that shows completion dates, test scope, and outcome classification in a single artefact an examiner can read in under ten minutes.

Module 7. Remediation Closure: The Evidence Chain That Matters

Examiners are not satisfied by a finding status of 'closed'. They want to see what was implemented to close it, who verified the implementation, and when the verification occurred. This module builds the remediation closure record format that answers those three questions for every finding, including the escalation path for findings that miss their target closure date and the evidence package that a third-party assessor uses to validate closure claims independently.

Module 8. Translating Integrity Risk for the Board

Board-level risk narratives for integrity programmes fail when they are too operational for a non-executive director and too summary for a general counsel. The module builds a narrative structure that addresses both audiences in one document: a programme status summary that a non-executive can read in four minutes, a risk heat map that a general counsel can interrogate, and a forward-looking obligation timeline that shows what the programme needs to deliver over the next two reporting periods.

Module 9. EU AI Act Obligations for Integrity Functions

The EU AI Act imposes conformity assessment and transparency documentation requirements on high-risk AI systems, which include content moderation and integrity classification systems deployed at scale. This module identifies which AI Act obligations fall within an integrity GRC function's accountability scope, builds the documentation structure for prohibited-practice assessments and high-risk system registers, and aligns those obligations with the DSA transparency report requirements that overlap them.

Module 10. The Pre-Examination Dry Run

Before an examiner arrives, a structured internal walkthrough against the evidence documentation reveals the gaps that would surface under external scrutiny. This module runs a dry-run methodology using the artefacts built in earlier modules, structured around the examination opening sequence that DSA coordinators and FTC monitors use: policy review, testing log request, remediation evidence request, accountability matrix review, board reporting review. Each step surfaces a specific type of gap, and the module provides the remediation protocol for each.

Module 11. Re-Examination Readiness: Making It a Cadence

Regulatory scrutiny of platforms is not a one-time event. DSA coordinators have annual review cycles. FTC consent decrees have ongoing monitoring. GDPR enforcement actions generate follow-up inquiries. This module builds the quarterly internal re-examination readiness cycle: a scheduled documentation review, a controls verification run, an accountability roster check, and a board narrative refresh. The output is a programme that surfaces its own gaps before regulators do, which is the only posture that prevents retroactive remediation under a live timeline.

Module 12. Your 90-Day Documentation Hardening Plan

The final module assembles the course outputs into a prioritised 90-day implementation plan scoped to your specific regulatory obligations. The plan sequences the DSA risk assessment refresh, the FTC monitoring evidence update, the GDPR accountability documentation review, and the cross-functional accountability matrix verification against a calendar that GRC can own and execute without cross-functional dependencies at the planning stage. Output is a plan you can present to your manager and your legal team on the same day.

How this addresses your situation

Specific modules that map to what you said you are dealing with.

DSA examiner asks for your Article 34 risk assessment methodology and update cadence: modules 2 and 10.

FTC monitor requests your testing programme evidence file and remediation closure records: modules 3, 6, and 7.

GDPR data protection authority asks for your accountability documentation and DPIA follow-through records: modules 4 and 5.

Board or general counsel asks for an integrity programme risk narrative ahead of the next reporting period: modules 8 and 12.

What you get with this course

12 written modules covering regulatory evidence architecture, testing cadence design, cross-functional accountability, and board-level reporting for integrity GRC.
Downloadable templates: DSA Article 34 risk assessment structure, FTC monitoring evidence file format, GDPR accountability matrix, testing cadence log, remediation closure record, board risk narrative, 90-day hardening plan.
The hand-built implementation playbook, delivered alongside course access, scoped to the specific regulatory obligations and documentation gaps most common in platform integrity roles.

What you will have in hand by Day 1, Week 1, Month 1

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.

Before and after

Before

The integrity programme exists and the policy layer is solid. But the testing log is incomplete, the remediation closure records are inconsistent, and the accountability matrix has not been verified since the last reorganisation. An examiner arriving today would find the right words on the right documents and a documentation trail that does not hold up to follow-up questions.

After

A regulatory evidence package that answers an examiner's opening ten questions before they are asked. A testing cadence that runs on schedule and produces a log an external assessor can navigate. A cross-functional accountability structure that is verified quarterly and does not depend on organisational memory. A board narrative that a general counsel and a non-executive director both trust on the same read.

What happens if you do not address this

Regulatory examination of platforms is accelerating across DSA, GDPR enforcement, and consent-decree monitoring regimes. The documentation gaps that exist today do not shrink with time. They become harder to remediate retroactively once an examiner has already identified them, because every retroactive fix then requires a credible explanation for why the documentation did not exist before the examination began.

Who it is for

You run GRC for an integrity function at a technology platform operating under multiple concurrent regulatory regimes. You are accountable for the evidence layer that sits behind trust-and-safety controls: the testing cadence documentation, the cross-functional accountability assignments, the risk registers that feed executive and board reporting. You know the programme exists. You are not confident the documentation would survive a structured walkthrough with an external examiner today.

Who this is NOT for. Compliance generalists who want an overview of platform regulation. This course is for GRC professionals already inside an integrity function who need to build or harden the documentation and accountability structures behind existing controls.

How it arrives

Text-based course in the Art of Service learning environment, plus downloadable templates and worked examples for every module, plus the hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access.

Time investment. Each module is designed for a single focused session of 30-45 minutes. The full course can be completed over two weeks alongside a standard workload, or compressed into a single intensive week if a regulatory deadline is driving the timeline.

Why $199 is the right number

External consultancies offering GRC programme assessments start at five figures and produce a report you do not own and cannot run yourself. Internal training programmes at this level of regulatory specificity do not exist for platform integrity roles. This course gives you the frameworks, the templates, and the implementation playbook to build the documentation structure yourself, in a timeline you control.

FAQ

Is this specific to Meta's regulatory situation or applicable to any platform integrity role?

The frameworks apply to any platform operating under DSA, GDPR enforcement, or FTC consent decree obligations. The implementation playbook delivered with the course is scoped to your specific role and the regulatory obligations most relevant to your current accountability.

I already have most of this documentation. Is the course still useful?

The course is most useful when the documentation exists but has not been tested against a structured examiner walkthrough. Module 10 (the pre-examination dry run) is specifically designed for that situation and surfaces gaps that are not visible until you run the examination sequence against what you actually have.

How does the implementation playbook differ from the course modules?

The course modules build the frameworks and templates. The implementation playbook is a hand-built document scoped to your role and your organisation's specific regulatory obligations. It sequences the module outputs into a prioritised action plan you can execute and present to stakeholders without adaptation.

30-day money-back guarantee. If after a week of working through the materials this is not what you needed, reply to the receipt email and a full refund is processed. No questions, no forms.

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.