Simple answer: We don't know.
Not so simple answer: There's obviously a lack of formalisation. Whatever the reason, Roman administration had no need for that. So we might assume that 'irregular' units, which were mustered just for a certain (set of) campaign(s), were left to their own devices in terms of organisation. Most likely there had to be some kind of spokesperson (or a number thereof), acting as a contact for Roman administration. But this could well be limited to overall command; on average the Romans seemed to have a lot of trust in their confidants, once these had been exposed and accustomed to Roman culture (Arminius is a well-known if somewhat bad example).
The terms "numerus" and "cuneus" don't help either, since these were apparently used to describe, well, 'informal' formations of regular soldiers as well, i.e. a number (numerus!) of troops from different units mixed together.
There's
one piece of evidence – which I remember – mentioning a Roman legionary centurion in charge of – apparently – foreign troopers. But the composition of these troops is unclear at best, and the purpose of their assembly was construction work not actual warfare.
In essence, there's no evidence for an 'in-depth' Romanisation of irregulars. In terms of modelling, that's liberating I guess.