Most teams treat governance as something that slows development down. It shows up as extra reviews, stricter controls, and additional steps before anything can go live. Developers see it as friction. Product teams see it as delay. So governance gets pushed to later stages, often after the system is already built. That is where the real problem begins. Because governance introduced late is almost always restrictive. It tries to control a system that is already moving fast, already integrated, already in use. At that point, the only way to enforce it is by adding blockers, approvals, and manual checks. Naturally, it feels like it is slowing everything down. But that is not a problem with governance itself. It is a problem with how it is implemented. In LLM systems, where behavior changes with every prompt and interaction, governance cannot be something you layer on after development. It has to be part of how the system is designed from the start. When done correctly, governance does not slow teams down.…