Who we are
Tollivar is an independent, boutique UK AI governance advisory. We review how a company governs, discloses and reports its use of AI, and we give the board a view it can rely on. Our subject is the company itself, the legal person that answers for its AI, not any single system it runs. We are UK-registered, available internationally, with a Nordic and UK focus. Business development is by referral.
Independent by structure
We hold no product in the systems we review. We implement nothing we assess, we are not aligned to any vendor, and we share no fee with the people who introduce us. That is a deliberate structure, and it is what lets a Tollivar review repeat and mean something year on year.
Tollivar's standing
The firm's own credentials and engagements:
UK-registered company, Companies House 16477503.
ICO registered, and collaborating with the ICO on questions of anonymisation.
Signatory to the EU AI Pact.
Member of the European Commission's Apply AI Alliance.
Committed to the OECD's Hiroshima AI Process Reporting Framework, with our first report to follow at the next annual cycle.
Affiliated with the Alan Turing Institute Practitioners Hub.
We are a newly established firm. We take part in the same transparency frameworks we review in others, and we would rather state that plainly than imply a track record we have not yet built.
Dr Yoriko Otomo, Co-founder and Principal
Yoriko designed and leads the Tollivar Framework. Her credentials sit behind the method:
AI Governance Professional (IAPP).
Certified ISO/IEC 42001 provisional lead auditor.
Published legal scholar. Author of an Oxford University Press monograph on international law and the governance of technological risk (Unconditional Life: The Postwar International Law Settlement, Oxford University Press, 2016).
Cited more than 8,000 times.
Member of the UNESCO Observatory, AI Ethics Experts Without Borders.
Expert in Residence on the Alan Turing Institute's Turing Way.
Represented Tollivar at the House of Lords Women in Tech gathering.
The combination is unusual, and it is the point. A humanities-grounded reading of how technology and the law meet, alongside the standards-side discipline of a lead auditor, is what lets us read socio-technical risk rather than only the technical surface.
If you have been referred, or you carry AI on a board's risk register, request a conversation.