Compare

HELM vs Model Governance

Model governance tracks model posture. HELM governs action authority before company side effects run.

Where model governance is useful

Use it when the work fits the category.

Model inventory, evaluation, risk review, policy documentation, and governance reporting.

Where it breaks

A governed model still needs to use tools, move data, approve spend, publish code, or touch production systems.

HELM difference

HELM focuses on execution authority: who may turn an AI proposal into action, what proof is required, and how the decision is replayed.

Operating model comparison

Question	model governance	HELM
Authority	Usually lives in prompt instructions, workflow configuration, or human habit.	Authority is checked before a side effect can reach a tool, connector, data store, release path, or customer channel.
Failure mode	The system may keep going if the model, workflow, or credential has enough access.	Missing policy, approval, scope, risk, or proof returns DENY or ESCALATE.
Evidence	Logs may exist, but the decision path is often scattered across tools.	Receipts, ProofGraph edges, and EvidencePacks make the decision reviewable.
Code reality	Engineering agents often rely on search, generated plans, comments, or stale docs.	Code Intelligence Graph evidence pins repo commit, impacted symbols, routes, affected tests, read_set, write_set, CodeIndexReceipt, and CodeImpact.
Hostile inputs	Tool outputs, MCP servers, webpages, docs, and comments can become hidden instructions.	Unknown or hostile sources are quarantined or denied before they can influence execution.
Real-world effects	Workflow tools may treat refunds, vendor dispatch, logistics, or device commands like ordinary digital actions.	Analog and kinetic gateway actions require bounded scope, approvals, safety contracts, telemetry, and EvidencePacks.
Review	Review often happens before configuration or after incident response.	The reviewable object is the governed action and its receipt.