AITHIRD-001™
The SAFECHAIN™ Accountability Integrity Third-Party, Contractor & Partnership Accountability Framework™
Establishing the Governance Standard for Preserving Institutional Accountability Across Outsourced Services, Contractors, Suppliers, Consultants, Professional Advisers, Delivery Partners and Other Third-Party Relationships
Framework Reference: AITHIRD-001™
Framework Type: Third-Party Governance, Outsourcing, Contractor, Partnership, Safeguarding, Assurance & Institutional Accountability Framework
Parent Framework: ACCOUNTABILITY-001™ — The SAFECHAIN™ Governance Answerability, Consequence & Institutional Accountability Framework™
Classification Architecture: AI1™–AI5™
Framework Series: SAFECHAIN™ Accountability Integrity Series
Version: 1.0
Year: 2026
1. Framework Purpose
The SAFECHAIN™ Accountability Integrity Third-Party, Contractor & Partnership Accountability Framework™ (AITHIRD-001™) establishes how institutions preserve accountability when functions, services, decisions, information, safeguarding responsibilities or operational activities involve external organisations or individuals.
AITHIRD-001™ applies, proportionately, to relationships including:
contractors;
subcontractors;
suppliers;
outsourced service providers;
consultants;
professional advisers;
technology providers;
delivery partners;
strategic partners;
agencies;
intermediaries;
commissioned services;
joint delivery arrangements;
consortium members;
external specialists;
other third parties exercising functions capable of affecting institutional accountability.
The framework addresses:
Selection → Due Diligence → Authority → Contracting → Safeguarding → Information → Delivery → Oversight → Evidence → Challenge → Escalation → Remediation → Exit → Verification
AITHIRD-001™ is founded upon the principle that outsourcing an activity does not automatically outsource the institution's responsibility for governing the risks, decisions, consequences and accountability associated with that activity.
2. Central Question
Can the institution demonstrate effective accountability for functions delivered through third parties—or has outsourcing created a gap in which responsibility is fragmented, transferred or allowed to disappear?
3. Governing Principle
Institutional accountability should follow the function, risk, authority and impact of an activity regardless of whether that activity is performed internally or through a third party. Delegation of delivery must not become delegation of accountability without clearly established lawful and governance justification.
4. Third-Party Accountability Integrity™
AITHIRD-001™ defines Third-Party Accountability Integrity™ as:
The institutional capability to identify, allocate, oversee, evidence and enforce accountability throughout third-party relationships so that outsourcing, contracting, partnership or delegation cannot create unmanaged responsibility gaps, weaken safeguarding, fragment evidence, obscure decision ownership or prevent effective correction and remedy.
5. SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Architecture™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Architecture™
TPA1 — Identify
Identify third-party relationships capable of creating material accountability risk.
TPA2 — Assess
Assess integrity, competence, safeguarding, governance and delivery risk.
TPA3 — Allocate
Define responsibility, authority, decision rights and accountability.
TPA4 — Contract
Embed material governance obligations into contractual or partnership arrangements.
TPA5 — Control
Establish operational, safeguarding, information and evidence controls.
TPA6 — Monitor
Monitor performance, conduct, risk and accountability indicators.
TPA7 — Challenge
Provide mechanisms for scrutiny, complaint and escalation.
TPA8 — Intervene
Respond where failure, harm or material risk emerges.
TPA9 — Remedy
Correct failure and provide appropriate remedy.
TPA10 — Verify
Independently establish whether accountability remained effective.
6. Third-Party Accountability Register™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Register™
The institution should maintain proportionate records identifying:
Third Party
Function
Contract/Arrangement
Institutional Owner
Delegated Authority
Decision Rights
Safeguarding Exposure
Information Access
Affected-Person Impact
Risk Classification
Assurance Status
Escalation Route
7. Third-Party Materiality Test™
Ask:
Could failure by this third party materially affect people, safeguarding, rights, institutional decisions, evidence, service continuity, finances, regulatory obligations or public trust?
Where yes, enhanced accountability governance should be considered.
8. Third-Party Risk Classification™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes:
TPR1 — Limited Accountability Exposure
Low-impact supporting activity.
TPR2 — Moderate Accountability Exposure
Material operational dependency with limited direct affected-person impact.
TPR3 — Significant Accountability Exposure
Material service, information, safeguarding or decision dependency.
TPR4 — High Accountability Exposure
Serious potential harm, rights, safeguarding, regulatory or institutional impact.
TPR5 — Critical Accountability Dependency
Failure could cause severe harm, systemic disruption or major institutional accountability breakdown.
9. Accountability-by-Risk Principle™
The greater the authority, dependency, safeguarding exposure and potential harm transferred to a third party, the stronger the institution's accountability controls should become.
10. Pre-Engagement Due Diligence Standard™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Due Diligence Standard™
Before material engagement, assess proportionately:
Identity
Ownership
Competence
Capability
Financial Resilience
Governance
Safeguarding
Regulatory Status
Conflicts
Insurance where relevant
Data Governance
Past Performance
Integrity Concerns
11. Due Diligence Evidence Record™
Material due diligence should record:
Checks Undertaken
Evidence
Risks Identified
Exceptions
Approval
Mitigation
Reviewer
Date
12. Due Diligence Bypass Alert™
Activate where material third-party engagement proceeds despite absent, incomplete or unjustifiably waived due diligence.
13. Historical Conduct Test™
Assess whether known:
regulatory findings;
safeguarding failures;
litigation;
serious complaints;
integrity concerns;
contractual failures;
materially affect suitability.
14. Commercial Convenience Override Alert™
Activate where procurement speed, cost or commercial preference improperly overrides material accountability risk.
15. SAFECHAIN™ Suitability Principle™
A third party should not be treated as suitable merely because it is commercially available, technically capable or previously used.
16. Responsibility Allocation Standard™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Responsibility Allocation Standard™
For material relationships identify:
Institutional Accountable Owner
Third-Party Responsible Owner
Operational Owner
Safeguarding Owner
Information Owner
Escalation Authority
Remediation Authority
17. Accountability Ownership Matrix™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Ownership Matrix™
For each material function determine:
Who Performs?
Who Decides?
Who Approves?
Who Monitors?
Who Challenges?
Who Escalates?
Who Corrects?
Who Answers for Failure?
18. Responsibility Gap Alert™
Activate where no identifiable person or body accepts responsibility for a material third-party function or failure.
19. Dual-Disclaiming Alert™
Activate where:
Institution: “The contractor was responsible.”
and
Third Party: “The institution controlled the decision.”
result in no effective accountable owner.
20. SAFECHAIN™ Accountability Continuity Principle™
Responsibility must remain traceable across organisational boundaries.
21. Delegated Authority Standard™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Delegated Authority Standard™
Document:
Authority Granted
Authority Withheld
Decision Limits
Financial Limits
Safeguarding Authority
Escalation Requirements
Review Requirements
22. Authority Boundary Test™
Ask:
Did the third party act within the authority actually granted to it?
23. Unauthorised Decision Alert™
Activate where a third party makes a consequential decision outside documented authority.
24. Shadow Authority Alert™
Activate where a third party exercises practical decision-making power beyond formally documented authority because institutional staff routinely defer to it.
25. SAFECHAIN™ Authority Traceability Principle™
Third-party authority should be visible, bounded and capable of retrospective verification.
26. Contractual Accountability Standard™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Contractual Accountability Standard™
Material contracts should address, where appropriate:
Responsibilities
Performance Standards
Safeguarding
Evidence Preservation
Record Access
Data Governance
Complaint Cooperation
Investigation Cooperation
Audit Rights
Escalation
Remediation
Termination
27. Contract-to-Practice Test™
Ask:
Do contractual accountability obligations operate in practice—or exist only within contractual documentation?
28. Contractual Silence Alert™
Activate where a material accountability risk is not adequately addressed within the governing arrangement.
29. Contractual Evasion Alert™
Activate where contractual wording is used to avoid substantive institutional accountability for foreseeable third-party failure.
30. SAFECHAIN™ Contractual Integrity Principle™
Contractual allocation of liability does not, by itself, establish effective governance accountability.
31. Safeguarding Third-Party Standard™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Safeguarding Integrity Standard™
Where third parties interact with vulnerable or potentially vulnerable persons, governance should address:
Safeguarding Competence
Reporting
Escalation
Information Sharing
Immediate Protection
Allegation Handling
Record Preservation
Independent Referral
32. Safeguarding Delegation Test™
Ask:
Has safeguarding responsibility remained clear and actionable across the institutional boundary?
33. Safeguarding Responsibility Gap Alert™
Activate where safeguarding responsibility is disputed, unclear or delayed between organisations.
34. Safeguarding Override™
Credible immediate safeguarding risk should override ordinary contractual escalation where necessary to protect affected persons.
35. SAFECHAIN™ Safeguarding Continuity Principle™
Safeguarding duties must not disappear at the point where service delivery crosses an organisational boundary.
36. Information Governance Standard™
AIDATA-001™ should govern third-party information integrity.
AITHIRD-001™ requires clarity concerning:
Record Creation
Ownership
Access
Retention
Transfer
Correction
Preservation
Deletion
Auditability
37. Third-Party Record Access Standard™
The institution should retain sufficient access to records necessary for:
Oversight
Investigation
Complaint Handling
Regulatory Response
Safeguarding
Remediation
38. Evidence Access Failure Alert™
Activate where contractual or technical arrangements prevent the institution from accessing evidence necessary to investigate material failure.
39. Third-Party Evidence Preservation Trigger™
Material concern should trigger preservation of relevant:
Documents
Communications
Logs
Decision Records
Case Files
Audit Trails
System Data
40. Record Ownership Dispute Alert™
Activate where uncertainty about record ownership threatens preservation or accountability.
41. SAFECHAIN™ Evidence Continuity Principle™
Accountability evidence must remain preservable and reconstructable regardless of which organisation physically holds it.
42. Data Transfer Integrity Standard™
Where information passes between institution and third party, establish:
Source
Recipient
Purpose
Authority
Date
Integrity
Version
Correction Route
43. Information Fragmentation Alert™
Activate where material accountability information is divided across organisations in a manner that prevents complete reconstruction.
44. Third-Party Decision Record Standard™
Consequential third-party decisions should identify:
Decision
Decision-Maker
Authority
Evidence
Reason
Date
Escalation
45. Decision Attribution Alert™
Activate where consequential decisions cannot reliably be attributed to either institution or third party.
46. Performance Monitoring Standard™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Monitoring Standard™
Monitoring should consider:
Delivery
Quality
Complaints
Safeguarding
Incidents
Evidence Quality
Regulatory Concerns
Corrective Actions
Affected-Person Outcomes
47. Performance-Only Monitoring Alert™
Activate where monitoring focuses solely on:
cost;
speed;
volume;
contractual output;
while ignoring safeguarding, quality, complaints or accountability integrity.
48. Accountability KPI Standard™
Potential indicators include:
Complaint Rate
Repeat Failure
Safeguarding Escalation
Evidence Completeness
Correction Rate
Response Time
Remediation Completion
Affected-Person Impact
49. Metric Gaming Alert™
Activate where performance reporting improves because concerns are:
under-recorded;
reclassified;
prematurely closed;
excluded from metrics.
50. Third-Party Challenge Standard™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Challenge & Scrutiny Standard™
Institutions should retain ability to:
Question
Inspect
Request Evidence
Require Explanation
Challenge Decisions
Require Correction
Escalate
51. Deference-to-Expertise Alert™
Activate where specialist status or professional expertise prevents proportionate institutional challenge.
52. Commercial Relationship Deference Alert™
Activate where concern about damaging a valuable commercial or strategic relationship weakens scrutiny.
53. SAFECHAIN™ Independent Challenge Principle™
Commercial value, professional prestige or strategic importance must not create accountability immunity.
54. Complaint Accountability Standard™
Affected persons should have a clear route to raise concerns about third-party activity.
55. Complaint Routing Standard™
Complaints should identify:
Receiving Organisation
Responsible Organisation
Investigation Owner
Response Owner
Escalation Route
56. Complaint Ping-Pong Alert™
Activate where an affected person is repeatedly redirected between institution and third party without substantive ownership.
57. SAFECHAIN™ Single Accountability Entry Principle™
Affected persons should not be required to navigate organisational boundaries that the institution itself created in order to secure accountability.
58. Affected-Person Participation Standard™
AIPART-001™ should apply to material third-party accountability processes.
Affected persons should be able to:
Provide Evidence
Challenge Inaccuracies
Raise Safeguarding Concerns
Receive Reasons
Participate in Remedy
59. Outsourcing Visibility Standard™
Affected persons should, where relevant and appropriate, understand:
Who Is Delivering the Function
Who Controls the Decision
Who Holds Accountability
Where Concerns Can Be Raised
60. Hidden Outsourcing Alert™
Activate where affected persons reasonably believe they are dealing directly with the institution when material functions or decisions are actually controlled externally and this obscures accountability.
61. Third-Party Investigation Standard™
AIINV-001™ should govern serious investigations involving third parties.
Determine:
Investigator
Scope
Evidence Access
Witness Access
Independence
Disclosure
Findings
62. Contractor Self-Investigation Alert™
Activate where a third party is permitted to be the sole investigator of serious allegations concerning its own conduct without sufficient independent oversight.
63. Institutional Abdication Alert™
Activate where the institution accepts third-party investigation findings without adequate scrutiny despite material accountability concerns.
64. Joint Investigation Standard™
Where responsibility spans organisations, establish:
Lead Investigator
Evidence Protocol
Scope
Decision Authority
Safeguarding Responsibility
Reporting
65. Investigation Boundary Failure Alert™
Activate where relevant evidence falls outside investigation scope merely because it is held by another organisation.
66. Conflict-of-Interest Standard™
AIIND-001™ should govern conflicts involving:
Procurement Relationships
Personal Relationships
Commercial Dependency
Professional Networks
Financial Interests
Prior Advice
67. Commercial Conflict Alert™
Activate where financial or strategic dependency materially compromises scrutiny.
68. Adviser Self-Review Alert™
Activate where professional advisers are asked to assess failures materially connected to their own prior advice without appropriate independence.
69. Third-Party Independence Test™
Ask:
Can the accountability issue be examined without material influence from the organisation or individual whose conduct is under scrutiny?
70. Escalation Architecture™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Escalation Architecture™
TE1 — Operational Correction
TE2 — Contract/Relationship Management Intervention
TE3 — Senior Institutional Accountability Review
TE4 — Executive/Board Intervention
TE5 — Independent, Regulatory or External Escalation
71. Escalation Factors™
Consider:
Harm
Safeguarding
Recurrence
Evidence Integrity
Regulatory Exposure
Leadership Involvement
Third-Party Resistance
Systemic Risk
72. Escalation Obstruction Alert™
Activate where commercial, legal or reputational concerns improperly prevent escalation.
73. Regulatory Referral Interface™
AIREG-001™ should govern external referral where third-party failure may engage:
Regulator
Statutory Body
Professional Authority
Commissioner
Law Enforcement
Other Competent Oversight Body
74. Contract-before-Regulator Alert™
Activate where an institution treats contractual dispute mechanisms as preventing a necessary external referral.
75. SAFECHAIN™ External Accountability Principle™
Private contractual arrangements must not improperly obstruct legitimate statutory, safeguarding, professional or regulatory accountability.
76. Third-Party Failure Classification™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes:
TF1 — Minor Third-Party Control Weakness
TF2 — Material Third-Party Accountability Gap
TF3 — Significant Third-Party Accountability Failure
TF4 — Serious Outsourced Accountability Failure
TF5 — Systemic Third-Party Accountability Breakdown
77. Third-Party Integrity Classification™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes:
TPI1 — Strong Third-Party Accountability Integrity
TPI2 — Effective with Improvement
TPI3 — Material Accountability Integrity Gap
TPI4 — Serious Accountability Integrity Failure
TPI5 — Systemic Accountability Breakdown
78. Classification Evidence Standard™
Classification should consider:
Responsibility
Authority
Safeguarding
Evidence
Oversight
Challenge
Harm
Recurrence
Remediation
79. Third-Party Failure Impact Assessment™
AIIMPACT-001™ should assess impact upon:
Affected Persons
Service Delivery
Safeguarding
Rights
Finances
Institutional Trust
Regulatory Compliance
80. Institutional Responsibility Test™
Ask:
What did the institution know, what should it reasonably have known, what authority did it retain and what action could it have taken?
81. Knowledge Avoidance Alert™
Activate where institutional structures appear designed or operated so decision-makers remain formally unaware of third-party problems they should reasonably oversee.
82. Outsourced Blindness Principle™
An institution should not benefit from accountability blindness created by its own outsourcing architecture.
83. Leadership Accountability Interface™
AILEAD-001™ should determine senior responsibility where:
Known Third-Party Failure Continues
Warnings Are Ignored
Oversight Is Inadequate
Safeguarding Is Compromised
Remediation Fails
84. Board Visibility Standard™
AIGOV-001™ should ensure appropriate governance visibility of:
TPR4™–TPR5™ Relationships
TF4™–TF5™ Failures
Serious Safeguarding
Regulatory Referral
Systemic Third-Party Risk
85. Board Outsourcing Blindness Alert™
Activate where governing bodies receive extensive operational outsourcing information but insufficient accountability-risk information.
86. Multi-Tier Supply Chain Standard™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Extended Third-Party Accountability Standard™
Where subcontracting is permitted, assess:
Subcontractor Identity
Authority
Due Diligence
Safeguarding
Data Access
Oversight
Evidence
87. Subcontracting Opacity Alert™
Activate where the institution cannot reliably identify which organisation or individual actually performed a material function.
88. Accountability Cascade Standard™
Material accountability requirements should, where appropriate, cascade through relevant subcontracting arrangements.
89. Accountability Dilution Alert™
Activate where each additional contractual layer reduces effective accountability, evidence access or safeguarding control.
90. Technology Provider Accountability Standard™
Where third-party technology materially affects decisions or services, assess:
System Function
Decision Influence
Data
Human Oversight
Error Detection
Auditability
Correction
91. Technology Vendor Deflection Alert™
Activate where institutional actors attribute consequential outcomes to a vendor or system without examining institutional configuration, use, oversight or decision responsibility.
92. Professional Adviser Accountability Standard™
Professional advisers should remain subject to appropriate:
Instruction Clarity
Scope Control
Conflict Review
Evidence Standards
Challenge
Record Keeping
93. Advice-as-Decision Alert™
Activate where institutional decision-makers treat external advice as determinative without exercising their own accountable judgment.
94. Partnership Accountability Standard™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Partnership Accountability Integrity Standard™
Partnership arrangements should identify:
Purpose
Authority
Decision-Making
Information Sharing
Safeguarding
Accountability
Dispute Resolution
Exit
95. Collective Responsibility Gap Alert™
Activate where partnership governance produces collective discussion but no identifiable accountability.
96. SAFECHAIN™ Partnership Accountability Principle™
Shared delivery requires coordinated accountability, not diluted accountability.
97. Joint Decision Integrity Standard™
Joint decisions should record:
Participants
Evidence
Authority
Reason
Dissent
Final Accountability
98. Partnership Dissent Preservation Standard™
Material disagreement between partners should be preserved where relevant to subsequent accountability.
99. Remediation Standard™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Remediation Standard™
Remediation may include:
Immediate Safeguarding
Correction
Service Recovery
Evidence Restoration
Affected-Person Remedy
Contractual Enforcement
Governance Reform
Enhanced Monitoring
Suspension
Termination
100. Remediation Ownership Standard™
Each material corrective action should identify:
Owner
Deadline
Evidence
Affected Function
Verification
101. Third-Party Remediation Dependency Alert™
Activate where the institution cannot correct known harm because it has surrendered necessary control to the third party.
102. Remedy Accountability Standard™
AIRESP-001™ should ensure affected persons are not denied appropriate institutional remedy merely because the immediate failure occurred through a contractor or partner.
103. Liability-versus-Remedy Alert™
Activate where internal disputes about legal or contractual liability delay reasonable corrective action or safeguarding.
104. SAFECHAIN™ Remedy Continuity Principle™
Affected-person remedy should not disappear into disputes about organisational boundaries.
105. Consequence & Enforcement Standard™
AICONS-001™ should determine proportionate consequences including:
Corrective Notice
Enhanced Oversight
Financial Remedy where applicable
Restriction
Suspension
Termination
Referral
106. No-Consequence Supplier Alert™
Activate where repeated serious failure produces no meaningful consequence because the supplier is operationally difficult to replace.
107. Dependency Accountability Standard™
Institutions should assess whether excessive dependency weakens their capacity to:
Challenge
Suspend
Replace
Investigate
Enforce
108. Critical Dependency Alert™
Activate where fear of operational disruption materially compromises accountability.
109. Exit Governance Standard™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Exit Standard™
Exit planning should address:
Records
Data
Evidence
Safeguarding
Open Complaints
Investigations
Remediation
Service Continuity
Affected Persons
110. Exit Evidence Preservation Gate™
No material relationship should close without determining what accountability records must remain preserved.
111. Accountability Escape-by-Exit Alert™
Activate where termination, expiry, insolvency, restructuring or supplier replacement risks ending unresolved accountability processes.
112. SAFECHAIN™ Accountability Survival Principle™
Accountability obligations relating to historic conduct should survive the end of the commercial or partnership relationship where necessary for investigation, safeguarding, correction, remedy or lawful oversight.
113. Third-Party Transition Standard™
When providers change, transfer relevant:
Open Risks
Safeguarding Concerns
Complaints
Corrective Actions
Evidence Requirements
114. Transition Amnesia Alert™
Activate where provider transition causes unresolved accountability history to disappear.
115. Institutional Memory Interface™
AIMEM-001™ should preserve significant third-party:
Failures
Findings
Warnings
Remediation
Performance History
116. Repeat Supplier Failure Standard™
AIREC-001™ should detect recurring:
Service Failure
Safeguarding Failure
Evidence Failure
Complaint Failure
Contract Breach
117. Re-Procurement Amnesia Alert™
Activate where previously identified integrity concerns are not considered during future procurement or engagement.
118. Third-Party Pattern Aggregation Standard™
AISYS-001™ should aggregate patterns across:
Providers
Contracts
Locations
Functions
Affected-Person Groups
Time Periods
119. Fragmented Supplier Failure Alert™
Activate where similar failures across contracts remain isolated and systemic risk is missed.
120. Root-Cause Standard™
AIROOT-001™ should examine whether third-party failure arose from:
Provider Conduct
Poor Procurement
Weak Contract
Unclear Authority
Inadequate Oversight
Institutional Dependency
Cultural Deference
Information Fragmentation
121. Contractor-Blame Alert™
Activate where institutional root causes are ignored because immediate operational failure occurred externally.
122. SAFECHAIN™ Shared Causation Principle™
Third-party misconduct and institutional governance failure may coexist and should be assessed separately.
123. Assurance Standard™
AIASSURE-001™ should independently test:
Due Diligence
Contractual Controls
Safeguarding
Evidence Access
Monitoring
Escalation
Remediation
124. Assurance Reliance Alert™
Activate where institutional assurance relies exclusively upon certifications, self-reports or audits supplied by the third party without sufficient independent verification.
125. Right-to-Audit Integrity Standard™
Where appropriate to risk, institutional arrangements should preserve sufficient rights to verify compliance and accountability.
126. Audit Access Obstruction Alert™
Activate where the third party obstructs reasonable accountability assurance or evidence access.
127. Third-Party Accountability Dashboard™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Integrity Dashboard™
Potential indicators:
TPR4™–TPR5™ Relationships
TF3™–TF5™ Failures
Safeguarding Alerts
Evidence Access Failures
Complaint Ping-Pong Alerts
Remediation Overdue
Regulatory Referrals
Repeat Supplier Failures
128. Third-Party Warning Register™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Warning Register™
Record:
Provider
Concern
Evidence
Risk
Affected Persons
Owner
Action
Escalation
Outcome
129. Third-Party Accountability Stress Test™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Stress Test™
Test governance where:
Serious Safeguarding Allegation Emerges
Provider Denies Access to Evidence
Critical Supplier Fails
Professional Adviser Is Implicated
Regulator Requests Information
Affected Person Challenges Both Organisations
130. Stress-Test Question™
When the commercial relationship becomes difficult, can the institution still exercise meaningful accountability?
131. Third-Party Accountability Recovery Architecture™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes:
TRA1 — Failure Contained
TRA2 — Safeguarding Secured
TRA3 — Evidence Preserved
TRA4 — Responsibility Established
TRA5 — Investigation Completed
TRA6 — Remedy Implemented
TRA7 — Contract/Governance Corrected
TRA8 — Recurrence Controls Implemented
TRA9 — Assurance Completed
TRA10 — Closure Verified
132. Recovery Verification Standard™
Recovery should demonstrate:
Failure Corrected
Harm Addressed
Controls Improved
Accountability Preserved
Recurrence Reduced
133. Third-Party Accountability Closure Gate™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Closure Gate™
A material third-party failure should not close until, where applicable:
Responsibility Identified
Authority Established
Evidence Preserved
Safeguarding Addressed
Investigation Completed
Affected Persons Heard
Root Cause Assessed
Remediation Completed
Consequences Addressed
Recurrence Assessed
Independent Verification Completed
134. Premature Closure Alert™
Activate where a matter is closed solely because:
the contract ended;
the supplier apologised;
a service credit was issued;
personnel changed;
the provider was replaced.
135. Third-Party Accountability Reality Test™
AITHIRD-001™ establishes the:
SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Reality Test™
Ask:
If the third party causes serious failure tomorrow, can the institution identify who is responsible, secure the evidence, protect affected persons, investigate independently, compel corrective action, provide remedy and demonstrate governance accountability from beginning to end?
136. AITHIRD-001™ Third-Party Accountability Integrity Test™
An institution should be able to demonstrate:
1. Are material third parties identified?
2. Is a Third-Party Accountability Register™ maintained?
3. Does the Third-Party Materiality Test™ operate?
4. Can relationships be classified TPR1™–TPR5™?
5. Is due diligence proportionate to risk?
6. Are due diligence decisions evidenced?
7. Does the Due Diligence Bypass Alert™ operate?
8. Is historical conduct assessed?
9. Does the Commercial Convenience Override Alert™ operate?
10. Is institutional accountability ownership defined?
11. Is third-party responsibility defined?
12. Does the Accountability Ownership Matrix™ operate?
13. Does the Responsibility Gap Alert™ operate?
14. Does the Dual-Disclaiming Alert™ operate?
15. Is delegated authority documented?
16. Does the Authority Boundary Test™ operate?
17. Does the Unauthorised Decision Alert™ operate?
18. Does the Shadow Authority Alert™ operate?
19. Are material accountability requirements contractualised?
20. Does the Contract-to-Practice Test™ operate?
21. Does the Contractual Silence Alert™ operate?
22. Does the Contractual Evasion Alert™ operate?
23. Are safeguarding responsibilities clear?
24. Does the Safeguarding Delegation Test™ operate?
25. Does the Safeguarding Responsibility Gap Alert™ operate?
26. Does the Safeguarding Override™ operate?
27. Are third-party records governed under AIDATA-001™?
28. Does the institution retain necessary record access?
29. Does the Evidence Access Failure Alert™ operate?
30. Does the Third-Party Evidence Preservation Trigger™ operate?
31. Does the Record Ownership Dispute Alert™ operate?
32. Are data transfers traceable?
33. Does the Information Fragmentation Alert™ operate?
34. Are consequential decisions attributable?
35. Does the Decision Attribution Alert™ operate?
36. Does accountability monitoring extend beyond commercial performance?
37. Does the Performance-Only Monitoring Alert™ operate?
38. Are accountability KPIs monitored?
39. Does the Metric Gaming Alert™ operate?
40. Can the institution meaningfully challenge providers?
41. Does the Deference-to-Expertise Alert™ operate?
42. Does the Commercial Relationship Deference Alert™ operate?
43. Is there a clear complaint route?
44. Does the Complaint Ping-Pong Alert™ operate?
45. Does the Single Accountability Entry Principle™ operate?
46. Does AIPART-001™ govern affected-person participation?
47. Is outsourcing appropriately visible?
48. Does the Hidden Outsourcing Alert™ operate?
49. Does AIINV-001™ govern serious third-party investigations?
50. Does the Contractor Self-Investigation Alert™ operate?
51. Does the Institutional Abdication Alert™ operate?
52. Are joint investigations appropriately governed?
53. Does the Investigation Boundary Failure Alert™ operate?
54. Does AIIND-001™ govern conflicts?
55. Does the Commercial Conflict Alert™ operate?
56. Does the Adviser Self-Review Alert™ operate?
57. Does the Third-Party Independence Test™ operate?
58. Can matters escalate TE1™–TE5™?
59. Does the Escalation Obstruction Alert™ operate?
60. Does AIREG-001™ govern external referral?
61. Does the Contract-before-Regulator Alert™ operate?
62. Can failures be classified TF1™–TF5™?
63. Can integrity be classified TPI1™–TPI5™?
64. Does AIIMPACT-001™ assess third-party impact?
65. Does the Institutional Responsibility Test™ operate?
66. Does the Knowledge Avoidance Alert™ operate?
67. Does AILEAD-001™ assess leadership responsibility?
68. Does AIGOV-001™ provide board visibility?
69. Does the Board Outsourcing Blindness Alert™ operate?
70. Are subcontractors appropriately governed?
71. Does the Subcontracting Opacity Alert™ operate?
72. Do material accountability obligations cascade?
73. Does the Accountability Dilution Alert™ operate?
74. Are material technology providers accountable?
75. Does the Technology Vendor Deflection Alert™ operate?
76. Are professional advisers subject to accountability controls?
77. Does the Advice-as-Decision Alert™ operate?
78. Are partnerships governed through identifiable accountability?
79. Does the Collective Responsibility Gap Alert™ operate?
80. Are joint decisions traceable?
81. Is material partnership dissent preserved?
82. Does the Third-Party Accountability Remediation Standard™ operate?
83. Is remediation ownership defined?
84. Does the Third-Party Remediation Dependency Alert™ operate?
85. Does AIRESP-001™ preserve affected-person remedy?
86. Does the Liability-versus-Remedy Alert™ operate?
87. Does AICONS-001™ govern consequence?
88. Does the No-Consequence Supplier Alert™ operate?
89. Is critical dependency assessed?
90. Does the Critical Dependency Alert™ operate?
91. Does the Third-Party Accountability Exit Standard™ operate?
92. Does the Exit Evidence Preservation Gate™ operate?
93. Does the Accountability Escape-by-Exit Alert™ operate?
94. Does the Accountability Survival Principle™ operate?
95. Are accountability risks transferred during provider transition?
96. Does the Transition Amnesia Alert™ operate?
97. Does AIMEM-001™ preserve third-party accountability history?
98. Does AIREC-001™ identify repeat supplier failure?
99. Does the Re-Procurement Amnesia Alert™ operate?
100. Does AISYS-001™ aggregate third-party patterns?
101. Does the Fragmented Supplier Failure Alert™ operate?
102. Does AIROOT-001™ distinguish third-party and institutional causes?
103. Does the Contractor-Blame Alert™ operate?
104. Does AIASSURE-001™ independently verify third-party accountability?
105. Does the Assurance Reliance Alert™ operate?
106. Are proportionate audit rights available?
107. Does the Audit Access Obstruction Alert™ operate?
108. Does a Third-Party Accountability Integrity Dashboard™ operate?
109. Is a Third-Party Accountability Warning Register™ maintained?
110. Does the Third-Party Accountability Stress Test™ operate?
111. Does the Third-Party Accountability Recovery Architecture™ operate?
112. Is recovery independently verified?
113. Does the Third-Party Accountability Closure Gate™ operate?
114. Does the Premature Closure Alert™ operate?
115. Does the Third-Party Accountability Reality Test™ operate?
116. Can the institution demonstrate accountability across subcontracting chains?
117. Can it identify the real decision-maker regardless of contractual structure?
118. Can it access evidence when serious failure occurs?
119. Can it intervene despite commercial dependency?
120. Can safeguarding concerns bypass contractual barriers?
121. Can affected persons raise one concern without being passed between organisations?
122. Can institutional leadership identify serious outsourced accountability risk?
123. Can the board see critical third-party failures?
124. Can external regulatory referral occur where required?
125. Can unresolved accountability survive contract termination?
126. Can historical third-party failure inform future procurement?
127. Can recurring supplier patterns be identified systemically?
128. Can the institution distinguish supplier misconduct from its own governance failure?
129. Can independent assurance test provider claims?
130. Can remedy be provided without waiting for organisations to resolve liability disputes?
131. Can accountability remain effective when the provider is commercially critical?
132. Can third-party failure be reconstructed from selection through oversight, failure, investigation, remediation and closure?
133. Ultimately, can the institution answer:
When a third party exercises institutional functions, whose accountability is it—and can that accountability still be found, evidenced and enforced when something goes seriously wrong?
Where the institution can demonstrate continuous, traceable and enforceable accountability across organisational boundaries, it has passed the:
SAFECHAIN™ AITHIRD-001 Third-Party, Contractor & Partnership Accountability Integrity Test™
137. Framework Outcomes
Implementation of AITHIRD-001™ is intended to establish:
✓ Third-Party Accountability Architecture™
✓ TPA1™–TPA10™ Accountability Stages
✓ Third-Party Accountability Register™
✓ Third-Party Materiality Test™
✓ TPR1™–TPR5™ Risk Classification
✓ Third-Party Accountability Due Diligence Standard™
✓ Due Diligence Evidence Record™
✓ Due Diligence Bypass Alert™
✓ Commercial Convenience Override Alert™
✓ Third-Party Responsibility Allocation Standard™
✓ Third-Party Accountability Ownership Matrix™
✓ Responsibility Gap Alert™
✓ Dual-Disclaiming Alert™
✓ Third-Party Delegated Authority Standard™
✓ Authority Boundary Test™
✓ Unauthorised Decision Alert™
✓ Shadow Authority Alert™
✓ Contractual Accountability Standard™
✓ Contract-to-Practice Test™
✓ Contractual Silence Alert™
✓ Contractual Evasion Alert™
✓ Third-Party Safeguarding Integrity Standard™
✓ Safeguarding Delegation Test™
✓ Safeguarding Responsibility Gap Alert™
✓ Safeguarding Override™
✓ Third-Party Record Access Standard™
✓ Evidence Access Failure Alert™
✓ Third-Party Evidence Preservation Trigger™
✓ Record Ownership Dispute Alert™
✓ Data Transfer Integrity Standard™
✓ Information Fragmentation Alert™
✓ Third-Party Decision Record Standard™
✓ Decision Attribution Alert™
✓ Third-Party Accountability Monitoring Standard™
✓ Performance-Only Monitoring Alert™
✓ Accountability KPI Standard™
✓ Metric Gaming Alert™
✓ Third-Party Challenge & Scrutiny Standard™
✓ Deference-to-Expertise Alert™
✓ Commercial Relationship Deference Alert™
✓ Complaint Accountability Standard™
✓ Complaint Routing Standard™
✓ Complaint Ping-Pong Alert™
✓ Single Accountability Entry Principle™
✓ Outsourcing Visibility Standard™
✓ Hidden Outsourcing Alert™
✓ Third-Party Investigation Standard™
✓ Contractor Self-Investigation Alert™
✓ Institutional Abdication Alert™
✓ Joint Investigation Standard™
✓ Investigation Boundary Failure Alert™
✓ Commercial Conflict Alert™
✓ Adviser Self-Review Alert™
✓ Third-Party Independence Test™
✓ Third-Party Accountability Escalation Architecture™
✓ TE1™–TE5™ Escalation Levels
✓ Contract-before-Regulator Alert™
✓ TF1™–TF5™ Failure Classification
✓ TPI1™–TPI5™ Integrity Classification
✓ Third-Party Failure Impact Assessment™
✓ Institutional Responsibility Test™
✓ Knowledge Avoidance Alert™
✓ Board Visibility Standard™
✓ Board Outsourcing Blindness Alert™
✓ Extended Third-Party Accountability Standard™
✓ Subcontracting Opacity Alert™
✓ Accountability Cascade Standard™
✓ Accountability Dilution Alert™
✓ Technology Provider Accountability Standard™
✓ Technology Vendor Deflection Alert™
✓ Professional Adviser Accountability Standard™
✓ Advice-as-Decision Alert™
✓ Partnership Accountability Integrity Standard™
✓ Collective Responsibility Gap Alert™
✓ Joint Decision Integrity Standard™
✓ Partnership Dissent Preservation Standard™
✓ Third-Party Accountability Remediation Standard™
✓ Remediation Ownership Standard™
✓ Third-Party Remediation Dependency Alert™
✓ Remedy Accountability Standard™
✓ Liability-versus-Remedy Alert™
✓ Consequence & Enforcement Standard™
✓ No-Consequence Supplier Alert™
✓ Dependency Accountability Standard™
✓ Critical Dependency Alert™
✓ Third-Party Accountability Exit Standard™
✓ Exit Evidence Preservation Gate™
✓ Accountability Escape-by-Exit Alert™
✓ Accountability Survival Principle™
✓ Third-Party Transition Standard™
✓ Transition Amnesia Alert™
✓ Repeat Supplier Failure Standard™
✓ Re-Procurement Amnesia Alert™
✓ Third-Party Pattern Aggregation Standard™
✓ Fragmented Supplier Failure Alert™
✓ Contractor-Blame Alert™
✓ Shared Causation Principle™
✓ Third-Party Assurance Standard™
✓ Assurance Reliance Alert™
✓ Right-to-Audit Integrity Standard™
✓ Audit Access Obstruction Alert™
✓ Third-Party Accountability Integrity Dashboard™
✓ Third-Party Accountability Warning Register™
✓ Third-Party Accountability Stress Test™
✓ Third-Party Accountability Recovery Architecture™
✓ TRA1™–TRA10™ Recovery Stages
✓ Third-Party Accountability Closure Gate™
✓ Premature Closure Alert™
✓ Third-Party Accountability Reality Test™
✓ AITHIRD-001™ Third-Party Accountability Integrity Test™
✓ AI1™–AI5™ Integration
138. Framework Integration
AITHIRD-001™ should operate alongside, where relevant:
ACCOUNTABILITY-001™ — Governance Answerability, Consequence & Institutional Accountability
AIGOV-001™ — Governance Failure & Oversight Breakdown
AILEAD-001™ — Leadership, Executive & Board Accountability
AIDATA-001™ — Data, Records & Information Governance
AICULT-001™ — Organisational Culture & Behaviour
AIPART-001™ — Affected-Person Participation & Voice
AIINV-001™ — Investigation & Fact-Finding
AIIND-001™ — Independence & Conflict
AIASSURE-001™ — Independent Assurance & Verification
AIREG-001™ — Regulatory Referral & Oversight
AIESC-001™ — Escalation & Intervention
AIROOT-001™ — Root Cause & Causal Accountability
AISYS-001™ — Systemic Failure & Institutional Breakdown
AICONS-001™ — Consequence & Enforcement
AIRESP-001™ — Response, Redress & Remedy
AIFU-001™ — Follow-Up & Implementation
AIIMPACT-001™ — Impact & Effectiveness
AIREC-001™ — Recurrence & Repeat Failure
AIMEM-001™ — Institutional Memory & Knowledge Preservation
AIPUB-001™ — Public Interest, Transparency & Disclosure
139. Framework Statement
Outsourcing, contracting and partnership delivery may transfer operational activity, specialist expertise or service performance, but they must not create an accountability vacuum. AITHIRD-001™ establishes the architecture through which institutions identify who exercises authority, who holds evidence, who protects affected persons, who investigates failure, who provides remedy and who ultimately remains answerable when institutional functions cross organisational boundaries.
140. Comprehensive Copyright & Intellectual Property Notice
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All Rights Reserved.
AITHIRD-001™ — The SAFECHAIN™ Accountability Integrity Third-Party, Contractor & Partnership Accountability Framework™ is an original third-party governance, outsourcing, contractor accountability, partnership integrity, safeguarding, evidence, assurance and institutional-accountability framework developed and authored by Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA, Founder of SAFECHAIN™.
AITHIRD-001™ forms part of the SAFECHAIN™ Accountability Integrity Series and wider SAFECHAIN™ governance architecture.
The original expression, selection, arrangement, architecture, terminology, methodologies, classifications, tests, standards, principles, alerts, registers, matrices, escalation mechanisms, recovery structures, verification gates and associated implementation materials contained within this publication constitute proprietary intellectual property.
This includes, where original to AITHIRD-001™, the SAFECHAIN™ Third-Party Accountability Architecture™, TPA1™–TPA10™ Accountability Stages, Third-Party Accountability Register™, Third-Party Materiality Test™, TPR1™–TPR5™ Risk Classification, Third-Party Accountability Due Diligence Standard™, Due Diligence Evidence Record™, Due Diligence Bypass Alert™, Commercial Convenience Override Alert™, Third-Party Responsibility Allocation Standard™, Third-Party Accountability Ownership Matrix™, Responsibility Gap Alert™, Dual-Disclaiming Alert™, Third-Party Delegated Authority Standard™, Authority Boundary Test™, Unauthorised Decision Alert™, Shadow Authority Alert™, Contractual Accountability Standard™, Contract-to-Practice Test™, Contractual Silence Alert™, Contractual Evasion Alert™, Third-Party Safeguarding Integrity Standard™, Safeguarding Delegation Test™, Safeguarding Responsibility Gap Alert™, Safeguarding Override™, Third-Party Record Access Standard™, Evidence Access Failure Alert™, Third-Party Evidence Preservation Trigger™, Record Ownership Dispute Alert™, Data Transfer Integrity Standard™, Information Fragmentation Alert™, Third-Party Decision Record Standard™, Decision Attribution Alert™, Third-Party Accountability Monitoring Standard™, Performance-Only Monitoring Alert™, Accountability KPI Standard™, Metric Gaming Alert™, Third-Party Challenge & Scrutiny Standard™, Deference-to-Expertise Alert™, Commercial Relationship Deference Alert™, Complaint Accountability Standard™, Complaint Routing Standard™, Complaint Ping-Pong Alert™, Single Accountability Entry Principle™, Outsourcing Visibility Standard™, Hidden Outsourcing Alert™, Third-Party Investigation Standard™, Contractor Self-Investigation Alert™, Institutional Abdication Alert™, Joint Investigation Standard™, Investigation Boundary Failure Alert™, Commercial Conflict Alert™, Adviser Self-Review Alert™, Third-Party Independence Test™, Third-Party Accountability Escalation Architecture™, TE1™–TE5™ Escalation Levels, Contract-before-Regulator Alert™, TF1™–TF5™ Failure Classification, TPI1™–TPI5™ Integrity Classification, Third-Party Failure Impact Assessment™, Institutional Responsibility Test™, Knowledge Avoidance Alert™, Board Outsourcing Blindness Alert™, Extended Third-Party Accountability Standard™, Subcontracting Opacity Alert™, Accountability Cascade Standard™, Accountability Dilution Alert™, Technology Provider Accountability Standard™, Technology Vendor Deflection Alert™, Professional Adviser Accountability Standard™, Advice-as-Decision Alert™, Partnership Accountability Integrity Standard™, Collective Responsibility Gap Alert™, Joint Decision Integrity Standard™, Partnership Dissent Preservation Standard™, Third-Party Accountability Remediation Standard™, Third-Party Remediation Dependency Alert™, Liability-versus-Remedy Alert™, No-Consequence Supplier Alert™, Critical Dependency Alert™, Third-Party Accountability Exit Standard™, Exit Evidence Preservation Gate™, Accountability Escape-by-Exit Alert™, Accountability Survival Principle™, Transition Amnesia Alert™, Re-Procurement Amnesia Alert™, Fragmented Supplier Failure Alert™, Contractor-Blame Alert™, Shared Causation Principle™, Assurance Reliance Alert™, Right-to-Audit Integrity Standard™, Audit Access Obstruction Alert™, Third-Party Accountability Integrity Dashboard™, Third-Party Accountability Warning Register™, Third-Party Accountability Stress Test™, Third-Party Accountability Recovery Architecture™, TRA1™–TRA10™ Recovery Stages, Third-Party Accountability Closure Gate™, Premature Closure Alert™, Third-Party Accountability Reality Test™ and AITHIRD-001™ Third-Party Accountability Integrity Test™, together with associated framework materials.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, republished, adapted, translated, distributed, licensed, sublicensed, sold, commercially exploited, substantially replicated or incorporated into another third-party governance framework, outsourcing methodology, contractor-accountability system, supplier-governance model, partnership framework, safeguarding architecture, assurance methodology, certification scheme, accreditation programme, consultancy methodology, training product, artificial-intelligence system, analytics platform, software product, assessment tool or derivative commercial offering without prior written permission from the applicable rights holder, except to the extent otherwise permitted by applicable law.
Publication, citation, discussion or public accessibility of AITHIRD-001™ does not transfer ownership of the framework and does not grant any licence, assessment authority, certification right, accreditation right or authority to represent an implementation as officially SAFECHAIN™ authorised.
No unauthorised person or organisation may issue or represent any SAFECHAIN™ TPR1™–TPR5™ Risk Classification, TF1™–TF5™ Third-Party Failure Classification, TPI1™–TPI5™ Third-Party Integrity Classification, TE1™–TE5™ Escalation Level, AI1™–AI5™ classification, third-party accountability assessment, assurance opinion, certification, accreditation, SAFECHAIN™ Seal, governance rating or other credential as officially authorised, approved, verified, certified or accredited by SAFECHAIN™.
No person or organisation may represent itself as a SAFECHAIN™ authorised third-party accountability assessor, contractor-governance reviewer, supplier-integrity evaluator, partnership-accountability reviewer, governance auditor, verifier, certification body, accreditation body, implementation partner, training provider or assurance authority without express authorisation under applicable SAFECHAIN™ governance and licensing arrangements.
References within AITHIRD-001™ to generally established concepts including procurement, due diligence, contracting, outsourcing, supplier management, subcontracting, partnership governance, safeguarding, professional advice, audit rights, risk management, data governance, remediation and regulatory referral do not constitute claims of exclusive ownership over those underlying concepts.
The proprietary claim relates to the original SAFECHAIN™ expression, selection, arrangement, architecture, terminology, methodologies, classifications, tests, standards, principles, alerts, registers, matrices, escalation mechanisms, recovery structures, verification processes and framework materials developed by the author.
The use of the ™ symbol identifies names, framework components, methodologies, concepts and identifiers being asserted as proprietary brand or framework designations. It does not, by itself, constitute a representation that any particular designation has been registered as a trade mark in any jurisdiction.
Nothing within AITHIRD-001™ constitutes legal advice, procurement advice, contractual advice, regulatory determination, professional-conduct determination or a substitute for applicable legal, regulatory, contractual, procurement, safeguarding, data-protection, professional or governance obligations.
Where applicable legislation, regulation, contractual duties, procurement requirements, safeguarding obligations, professional rules, data-protection requirements or regulatory requirements prescribe particular action, those requirements remain controlling.
An AITHIRD-001™ assessment, classification or accountability finding does not, by itself, establish contractual liability, negligence, statutory breach, professional misconduct, regulatory breach or entitlement to a particular legal remedy.
AITHIRD-001™ is a governance third-party, contractor and partnership accountability framework and should be applied proportionately, independently and consistently with applicable law, evidence standards, procedural fairness, safeguarding obligations, affected-person participation, contractual requirements and authorised institutional governance arrangements.
Author and Framework Developer:
Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder — SAFECHAIN™
Framework: The SAFECHAIN™ Accountability Integrity Third-Party, Contractor & Partnership Accountability Framework™
Framework Reference: AITHIRD-001™
Parent Framework: ACCOUNTABILITY-001™
Classification Architecture: AI1™–AI5™
Framework Series: SAFECHAIN™ Accountability Integrity Series
Version: 1.0
Year: 2026
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All Rights Reserved.