Banbreach helps organisations turn promising AI agent workflows into controlled, testable and economically justified business operations. The firm is led by a principal who has secured and shipped real products. We do not run a delivery bench, we do not resell platforms, and we do not take engagements whose success depends on selling the next one.
Last reviewed: October 2026.
The people who do the work. Every credential below is either shown with the evidence that checks it, or explicitly marked as pending — nothing in between.
[VERIFY: one-line role, e.g. security engineering and AI workflow assurance]
Leads [VERIFY: assessments / workshops / methods] . Personally performs every engagement they lead.
Verify: [VERIFY: LinkedIn / publications / talks]
Placeholder card: the structure is live; every marked slot is a fact the principal must supply and verify before publication. Nothing unverified is presented as a credential.
We did not start from AI. We started from two fields where failure is expensive and discipline is non-negotiable.
From cyber security we bring the habits of assuming hostile input, granting the least privilege that works, separating who proposes from who approves, and keeping an audit trail. [VERIFY: one specific sentence on the security career — role, scope, years]
From product development we bring the habits of defining "done" before building, setting release gates, instrumenting what ships, and counting what each unit of value costs. [VERIFY: one specific sentence on the product career]
AI agents inherit both sets of problems: they accept untrusted input and they are products with an operating cost. The assessment applies both.
What this experience does not cover. [VERIFY: an honest limit — e.g. systems not yet certified against a regulatory standard, or production agent deployments to date] . If an engagement needs expertise we do not have, we will say so and help you find it.
AI agents are crossing from demos into consequential business workflows — drafting, deciding, sending, spending. The industry's default answer to the resulting risk is more capability and longer prompt instructions. Ours is engineering discipline: permissions that are enforced, policies a machine can check, tests over the workflow's properties, economics that make the operating cost visible, and named humans who own the material decisions.
Our verification policy. Every credential on this page can be checked. Each biography links to public evidence: professional profiles, publications, talks or code. We do not name past employers or clients without written permission, and we state what our experience does and does not cover. If you want to verify a claim, contact us and we will point you to the evidence.
Coverage of the firm and its principal — verifiable entries only — plus the speaking and media kit: bios, headshots, topics and the press contact route.
Every claim we publish is either measured, sourced to a primary reference, or explicitly labelled as an estimate or hypothesis. We keep those categories visually separate — in reports, on this site, and in conversation. When we do not know, the deliverable says so.
A test suite provides evidence over tested cases and properties. A formal proof establishes only the stated property under its assumptions. Neither makes a whole business process safe — and our work says so at the exact points where a reader might assume otherwise.
No invented testimonials, client logos, customer counts, project counts, case-study outcomes or performance claims appear anywhere in our work. Demonstrations use synthetic data and are labelled as illustrative.
Our job is to make a decision defensible — deploy, redesign or decline — with evidence, costs and residual risk stated. We are as valuable when the answer is 'no' as when it is 'go'.
We treat client material the way we advise clients to treat theirs: least data, controlled access, explicit lifetimes. Engagements use redacted or synthetic artefacts wherever the analysis allows it; production credentials are never requested; working material lives in access-controlled locations and is deleted at the end of the engagement or on request. A mutual NDA is available before anything sensitive is discussed, and findings are published or referenced only with written permission.
This website itself follows the same standard: the forms collect only what is needed to reply, submissions are validated and rate-limited server-side, analytics is consent-gated and receives no personal data, and the privacy notice describes exactly what is stored and for how long.
The people handling your material have [VERIFY: e.g. led security programmes for X / hold Y credential, current to Z] . The practices above are the ones we have applied to systems we were accountable for. [VERIFY: link to evidence — a talk, a write-up or a disclosure]
India, the United Kingdom and the United States, remote-first. [VERIFY: time-zone overlap windows — e.g. India (IST), UK (GMT/BST) and US East (ET), and who covers which region] . The fastest route is a direct enquiry — or discuss a workflow assessment.