A defensible posture. Evidence the institution can point at.
From the VPR's chair, the research security question is not about any single certification. It is whether the institution, over time, can demonstrate that it certified truthfully — and that the process for doing so exists, functions, and produces evidence.
The VPR is accountable for the institution's research portfolio and, increasingly, for its research security posture. That posture is under scrutiny from federal sponsors, from institutional trustees, and — in a rising number of cases — from the Department of Justice.
What ResearchSecurity.ai does for the VPR
- Grounds NSPM-33 program certification in evidence. The four required elements become a program the institution can show, not only assert.
- Reduces FCA exposure at the source. Certifications rest on verified disclosures, with the reconciliation captured immutably per certification.
- Gives leadership a single defensible view. Where verification is complete, where exceptions are open, and what the audit trail shows for any past certification.
- Runs alongside the systems the institution already funds. Not a rip-and- replace program — a verification layer over the workflow already in production.
What it does not do
- It does not build researcher profiles or monitor faculty. Verification, not surveillance.
- It does not replace legal counsel or compliance judgment; it makes them better-informed.
- It does not manufacture certainty. Where evidence does not exist, the platform says so.
The seat-of-the-VPR reality
Institutional research leaders are being asked, simultaneously, to protect the research enterprise, to defend the institution's federal funding relationships, and to demonstrate a compliance program that produces evidence. Verification is the piece that keeps those three from pulling in different directions.
See verification on realistic examples.
A briefing walks through disclosure verification against a scoped researcher cohort — with your compliance context, in about 30 minutes.