Record the decision
Document the data processing decision, the options, the people involved, and the reason.
Compliance / ICO accountability framework
The ICO expects accountability to be demonstrated, not described.
We build private workflows that help organizations keep accountability evidence: decisions, data protection impact assessments, training records, design reviews, and breach logs in one reviewable file. The workflow prepares the record; the client and its advisers make the legal call.
Decision recordDPIA fileTraining evidenceBreach log
Pattern demonstration / same workflow, synthetic material
Fixed-scope setupClient-owned accountsDraft-and-review firstFull handover
Where accountability work loses time
The evidence is spread across folders and inboxes.
The recurring work is connecting each decision, assessment, and control to the person, date, and source that support it.
Keep the DPIA current
Assemble the risk assessment, mitigations, consultation notes, and review dates.
Connect the proof
Link training, design review, audit, incident, and improvement records to the decision.
The accountability boundary
The system organizes proof. It does not certify accountability.
Legal judgment stays expert
Whether evidence is sufficient remains with the client and its advisers.
No automatic contact
ICO communications, complaints, and investigations remain with the organization.
Current guidance only
ICO accountability guidance is confirmed against the current official text before use.
A first accountability workflow
Start with one decision or assessment record.
Choose the record
Pick a DPIA, decision log, training record, or breach file the team needs to keep current.
Define the fields
List the decision, owner, date, source, risk, mitigation, and review fields.
Run the evidence check
Compare current records with the defined fields and review missing or stale items.
Build the review pack
Prepare the summary, source index, and open questions for the responsible owner.
Accountability is easier to show when every decision, assessment, and control has a date and an owner.
Why trust Pristine3D?
We build and operate production software.
Pristine3D Ltd builds and operates live digital products, and we run private AI workflows internally as part of our own operations. We scope around your real workflow: the documents you own, the questions your team asks, and the access boundary you approve. Based in Lagos, Nigeria, we work remotely with clients worldwide.
We already run live products
Based in Lagos, Nigeria, Pristine3D currently builds and operates smartcards.ng, venu.ng, photoshoot.ng, and ugc.ng in production.
We start with the actual workflow
One input, one output, one test set, and one person who owns the result. We scope a real workflow instead of a transformation programme.
The boundary stays visible
Cloud, model, storage, and messaging accounts stay in your name. The chosen data path, access rules, test record, documentation, and training are part of the agreed scope.
Pricing / fixed scope
Know the starting numbers before you ask.
The final quote follows the workflow. Infrastructure and model bills stay on your accounts.
One Workflow
Starting from$3,500 / ₦2.5m
2 to 3 weeksOne workflow for a small team, with training and handover.
See the one-workflow packageFirm-wide
Starting from$7,500 / ₦8m
4 to 6 weeksMultiple sources, roles, integrations, and admin handover.
See the deploymentAnnual support
Starting from$3,000 / ₦1.5m
per yearStandard care for one delivered workflow. Optional. Larger deployments and active monitoring are separately scoped.
See supportArchitecture review from $500. Standard annual support is $3,000 / ₦1.5m per year for one delivered workflow. New workflows, integrations, active monitoring, and infrastructure are separately scoped; infrastructure, model, storage, and messaging bills stay on client accounts. Full pricing and what changes the quote
Straight answers
Common questions.
Does this make us accountable under the ICO's framework?
It organizes evidence for the client's own review. Whether the record is sufficient remains a legal and compliance judgment.
Can it draft a DPIA?
It can prepare a draft from approved facts. The organization, its data protection officer, and advisers review and own the assessment.
How is this different from the UK GDPR page?
That page covers processing records and obligations. This page is the accountability layer: decisions, DPIAs, training, design reviews, and breach logs.
Own your knowledge base
The model is not the product. The knowledge base is.
Documents, the retrieval index, access rules, and the workflows built around them are the asset, and they compound. We deploy so the knowledge base stays yours: on your accounts, in the environment you choose, under access rules your team defines. The model behind the answers is a connector, so the knowledge base moves with you, not with a vendor.
Your corpus, your index
The document store, metadata, and retrieval setup live on accounts you own. No vendor holds the corpus.
Models are swappable parts
Change the model provider, move regions, or go local without rebuilding the knowledge base or the workflow.
The knowledge base is the alpha
Every improvement to the corpus improves the answers, and the improvement stays with you, not with a vendor.
Keep exploring
Related setups.
Start with the record
Which accountability file is hardest to keep current?
Tell us the decision, assessment, or training record and the review owner. We will scope the first workflow around the evidence you already hold.