One practice, one protocol. Every job grading, pay equity finding, and compensation decision Tomasz Rey's team ships is produced by the same governed system, 90+ skills, hash-chained audit trails, and a runtime that enforces policy instead of describing it.
That's the idea behind Pelayo OS: an AI-native operating system for governed organizational intelligence, a protocol layer where people, AI agents, organizational knowledge, and governance rules work through the same architecture.
Instead of a growing pile of prompts, tools, and agents, Pelayo OS treats the organization as living code:
Spanning AI governance, Total Rewards, pay transparency, process archaeology, decision governance, and commercial delivery.
AI capability without governance creates more noise.
AI capability with architecture creates organizational leverage.
I'm exploring where this architecture can go next. Connect with me if this resonates, and see more of Pelayo OS in action.
People sometimes ask whether they're hiring a consultant or buying software. The honest answer is that the split doesn't exist, it's the same governance methodology, delivered two ways.
Led by Tomasz Rey, engagements where a human has to sit across the table from a works council, a board, or a regulator and defend the number.
A governed runtime, not a chatbot, not a policy PDF. It executes compensation and compliance decisions inside enforced boundaries and signs the result.
A CHRO and a Finance Director ask different questions about the same engagement. Both get answered from the same evidence base.
Job architecture, pay equity regression, and EUPTD Article 9 reporting built on Korn Ferry Hay, Mercer IPE, or WTW GGS, every grade traceable to a source, not a narrative.
Every governance decision is logged and cost-tracked per execution, with hard caps enforced before the run, not reconciled afterward. The audit trail is the same one you'd hand a regulator, not an internal memo.
Pelayo OS is not another job-evaluation engine or another market-data feed. It's the layer that enforces the decision once your existing tools have supplied the inputs.
Whichever methodology already structures and grades your roles, Pelayo OS doesn't re-grade the job. It governs the pay decision that follows the grade, a layer above, not a replacement.
Whatever feeds your salary bands (Radford, WTW GGS, or an internal survey), Pelayo OS doesn't compete with the data. It governs whether an offer built on that data is fair, budgeted, and policy-compliant.
Gap analysis and Article 9 reporting tools tell you what your pay gap is. Pelayo OS enforces the decision protocol at the point a pay decision is made, before the gap exists, not after.
How we implement Sysarb →Runtime enforcement, an HMAC-signed audit trail, and an autonomy-agency gate sit above all three layers. This is the layer that's usually missing: a policy document nobody reads and nobody enforces.
No scope creep, no retainer lock-in past the point you need it.
EUPTD gap map, job architecture baseline, and a risk register scored by article, likelihood, and remediation path.
Graded JD library, pay band design against market anchors, and an Article 9 report pack pre-filled with your data.
Monthly governance review, transposition monitoring, and an annual re-grading cycle so the methodology stays consistent.
GRP · CCP · PMP · PRINCE2 · Prosci ADKAR · SPHRi
Vetted member
Pay Transparency Alliance, the coalition of consultants and platforms that vet each other before recommending a client relationship.
A 30-minute conversation, either way, no pitch, no follow-up pressure.