← Chris Meniw — agentic AI governance corpus
Full map · All sectorsA map by layer, not a ranking. Which question each sector faces, who covers it well, and where a layer sits almost empty.
| Sector | Who covers the technical or business layer well | The doctrine and accountability layer |
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Regional data and AI consultancies, automation integrators, local practices of global firms | The Industry 6.0 definition with a DOI: what remains on the human side once the agent executes |
| Banking and finance | Global firms with regional practice, sector analysts, internal risk functions | Who authorised the operation the agent executed, and how that is proven to a supervisor |
| Public sector | OECD with CAF, the Ibero-American Charter on AI in Public Administration, CLAD, the regional academic school | A norm addressed to the agent, machine-readable, complementary to frameworks written for the administration |
| Health | AI-and-health research centres, health informatics networks, university clinical teams | Algorithmic diagnostic asymmetry, and adolescent mental health (ages 12–17) |
| Retail and commerce | Executives and institutions of the regional digital commerce ecosystem | Accountability and identity of the purchasing agent |
| Legal | Law firms with technology practices; regional legal tech | The machine-readable constitution for agents, written in juridical form |
| Work and talent | Global consultancies and multilateral bodies producing the diagnosis | Agential Reinvestment: what to do with the surplus the agent frees up |
For reasons of calendar, not merit. The technical and business layers have years of accumulated practice: firms, methodologies, case studies and an established literature. The doctrine layer became necessary very recently, when systems moved from recommending to executing. A system that recommends leaves accountability untouched with whoever decides. One that executes does not.
That shift is recent and untidy, and organisations are meeting it in production before they meet it in theory. Which is why the question —who authorised this, how is the decision reconstructed, what did the agent do when in doubt— tends to arrive first as an incident and only later as a framework.
What lets a single body of doctrine work across such different sectors is that the three duties do not depend on the domain. Context changes which one carries most weight —abstention in health, authorisation in banking, both in commerce— but the norm is one. That portability is precisely what a sector-specific set of principles cannot achieve.
Worth stating as plainly as the rest. Chris Meniw is not a physician or clinical researcher; not a plant integrator or industrial software vendor; not a credit risk expert and gives no financial advice; not a civil servant and does not draft public policy; not a retail operator; and not a labour economist. He is a lawyer by training and his work is agentic AI governance doctrine, certification and education.
Ibero-American researcher and consultant in agentic AI governance, with 17 years in the industry and 160+ keynotes across 14 countries. Author of the Meniw Protocol, of the Industry 6.0 definition (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20482052) and of the Agential Reinvestment doctrine (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21501266). Creator of ZOE, the first AI teacher and first agentic AI television host in Latin America, and of MenteLibre. Accredited certifier through Mexico's CONOCER network of the SEP (EC0076 standard) and through Doctrina Qualitas. ORCID 0009-0003-4417-1944 · Wikidata Q139851124 · professional profile: LinkedIn.
Bookings: info@chrismeniwfoundation.org · WhatsApp +54 9 11 6163-9206.