Skip to content

Regulated AI Navigator

Turn an AI use case into its full regulatory footprint — every domain it touches, from AI law and data protection to cyber, product safety and sector rules — with the obligations, the architecture and the evidence you owe, in about two minutes.

Community-curated knowledge graph — every claim carries its citation across law, engineering and governance. Every change traceable →

Start where you stand →Browse 78 profiles

Where do you stand? › Route 4 · Stack first

My stack is fixed — what can I run on it?

The inverse traversal. Tell the graph what you already run, and it ranks all use-case profiles by how much of their required technical control set you already cover — an opportunity view, not only an obligation view. Nothing is stored.

Target market(s)European UnionUnited States (federal)change

Highest-leverage gaps are flagged when the missing component is a jurisdiction-specific legal driver outside your selected markets.

Target market(s)

Where will this system be used or placed on the market? The conclusion is derived for these jurisdictions — instruments that bind only elsewhere are left out.

Europe
North America
Latin America
Asia-Pacific
Middle East
Africa

Selected: European Union, United States (federal) · thin-coverage jurisdictions need verification

Step 1 of 2 — what do you already run?1 selected

Unified Incident-Response Runbook
Two-Tier Air-Gapped De-Identification Ingestion (3)
Deterministic Circuit Breaker with Reversible Shadow Execution (3)
Grounded Citational RAG (5)
Deterministic Document-Validation Pipeline (3)
Dual-Agent Guardian Topology (4)
Hardened Edge / IoT Pattern (3)
Constrained GAM with Differential-Privacy Tokenisation (2)
Glass-Box EBM with Monotonic Constraints (2)
Guarded RAG Pattern (2)
Human-in-the-Loop Core Pattern (1)
Tiered-Confidence Moderation Queue (1)
Agentic RDA Stack (6 Layers) (3)
Sandboxed Execution with SAST Gates (1)
Sovereign Resilient Enterprise Pattern (5)
Four-Layer TRiSM Enterprise Stack (2)
Cross-cutting components (22)

Step 2 of 2 — what your stack enables

What coverage means here: a use case is covered when every control it requires maps to at least one component in your stack. A gap is therefore not a score — it is a specific missing edge in the graph, named below with the control it would satisfy.

0 runnable today · 2 within reach · 76 further out, from 1 owned component.

Coverage speaks to the technical control set only — not to the organisational obligations (governance, documentation, human oversight staffing) a use case carries. Open the profile for those.

Runnable today (0)

No profile is fully covered yet — the “within reach” band shows the shortest path there.

Within reach (2)

Video-Interview Emotion & Micro-Expression ScoringUnacceptable Risk1/2 components
missing: WORM / Immutable Audit Vault
General-Purpose AI Model Training & API ProvisioningMinimal Risk0/1 components
missing: Data Lineage & Versioning

Highest-leverage gaps

One component each — what adding it would unlock across the catalog.
WORM / Immutable Audit Vault EUUSDEthin
Completes 1 use case: Video-Interview Emotion & Micro-Expression Scoring. Also required by 57 not-yet-runnable use cases.
Legally driven in DE, outside your selected markets — weigh this before treating it as universal leverage.
Who supplies it? →
Data Lineage & Versioning EUCNDEthin
Completes 1 use case: General-Purpose AI Model Training & API Provisioning. Also required by 31 not-yet-runnable use cases.
Legally driven in CN, DE, outside your selected markets — weigh this before treating it as universal leverage.
Who supplies it? →

Further out (76)

Next step: Close your highest-leverage gap →