Regulated AI Navigator

Turn an AI use case into its EU AI Act risk class, the regulations it triggers, the obligations, the architecture and the evidence you owe — in about two minutes.

Community-curated knowledge graph, peer-reviewed by experts across law, engineering and governance. Every change traceable →

Analyse a use case →Browse 35 profiles

Regulation coverage

Every regulation in the graph resolves into concrete technical components — through an article obligation, a control objective, a design pattern or an evidence artefact that a component must produce. Pick a regulation to see its technical surface, how each component is derived, and in which of the triggering use cases it is actually part of the required stack. The gap counts show where the graph reaches a component that no use case yet requires — those are open contribution targets, not settled answers. Open the full graph →

Colorado AI Act

First comprehensive US state AI law, effective 30 June 2026: duty of reasonable care for developers and deployers of high-risk AI making consequential decisions (employment, credit, housing, insurance, health); impact assessments, consumer notice and appeal rights.

15 components0 articles / obligations3 triggering use casesopen in graph

Confidence Scoring & Threshold Gate

100% of use cases

Computes a probabilistic confidence score for every output and holds the transaction when the score falls below the workflow's regulatory threshold.

  • practice-derived3 triggering use cases require Confidence Scoring & Threshold Gate

Explainability API (SHAP/LIME/CoT)

100% of use cases

Feature attributions for classical ML, reasoning-trace summaries for GenAI — feeds the human reviewer and the technical file.

  • practice-derived3 triggering use cases require Explainability API (SHAP/LIME/CoT)

HITL Escalation Queue & Review UI

100% of use cases

HITL escalation queue & review UI ('Human-as-a-Tool': the agent calls the human like any other tool via propose-action objects). Confidence- and risk-threshold routing, SLA timers, structured accept/modify/reject verdicts with digital reviewer signature at gate release — each verdict is itself Art. 14 evidence and feeds the active-learning loop.

  • practice-derived3 triggering use cases require HITL Escalation Queue & Review UI

Trust & Risk Dual Scoring

100% of use cases

Escalation triggers built from two independent signals, because raw model confidence is uncalibrated: calibrated trust scores (prompt relevance, similarity to historic successes, cross-model consistency) plus deterministic risk scores (sensitive categories, transaction value, protected data) — either crossing its threshold forces human review.

  • practice-derived3 triggering use cases require Trust & Risk Dual Scoring

WORM / Immutable Audit Vault

100% of use cases

Append-only, hash-chained audit vault (WORM object-lock storage, AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.3 in transit). Guarantees tamper-evidence within the organization's trust domain — which stops your own team, but not an admin who can rebuild the vault. Pair with an external trust anchor and key ceremonies outside the operating team for evidence that holds against the insider scenario.

  • practice-derived3 triggering use cases require WORM / Immutable Audit Vault

Isolated Tenant Storage Enclave

33% of use cases

Per-client storage boundary for raw payloads, intermediate artefacts and outputs, so no tenant data is co-mingled or reachable across engagements.

  • practice-derived1 triggering use case require Isolated Tenant Storage Enclave

Multi-Region Failover & Resilience Testing

33% of use cases

DORA-grade continuity: regional redundancy, chaos testing, exit strategies for critical third parties.

  • practice-derived1 triggering use case require Multi-Region Failover & Resilience Testing

OpenTelemetry / FCoT Tracing

33% of use cases

Hierarchical trace spans for every sub-task, prompt, retrieved document and API call — the reconstructible decision path for Art. 12/14 and PLD disclosure.

  • practice-derived1 triggering use case require OpenTelemetry / FCoT Tracing

Sovereign Context Layer

33% of use cases

Governed runtime workspace operationalizing Art. 10: traceable lineage for every RAG chunk and training record at execution time, canonical version-controlled business glossary (documents Art. 10(2)(d) baseline assumptions), and continuous data-quality monitoring with threshold alerts and logged remediation for the Art. 10(3) 'error-free and complete' standard.

  • practice-derived1 triggering use case require Sovereign Context Layer

Vendor & Model Due-Diligence Kit

33% of use cases

Scoring model: jurisdiction (CLOUD Act exposure), zero-data-retention, BYOK support, audit evidence (C5/AIC4/ISO 42001/EN 18286:2026), tenant isolation.

  • practice-derived1 triggering use case require Vendor & Model Due-Diligence Kit

Zero-Trust Ingestion Gateway

33% of use cases

Authenticated, policy-checked entry point for client payloads; enforces tenant identity, schema validation and rate limits before any data reaches an inference path.

  • practice-derived1 triggering use case require Zero-Trust Ingestion Gateway