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 →

DORA

source EUR-Lex

Digital operational resilience for the financial sector: ICT third-party risk (CTPP oversight), change management, resilience testing — applies to AI-based trading, credit and KYC systems.

6 components0 articles / obligations9 triggering use casesopen in graph

WORM / Immutable Audit Vault

89% 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.

Triggered but not yet requiredTransaction Monitoring & FRAML

OpenTelemetry / FCoT Tracing

78% 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.

Vendor & Model Due-Diligence Kit

67% 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.

  • named in regulationDORA → Vendor & Model Due-Diligence Kit
  • evidence artefactDORA → Vendor & Model Due-Diligence Records → produced by Vendor & Model Due-Diligence KitVendor & Model Due-Diligence Records

Multi-Region Failover & Resilience Testing

67% of use cases

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

  • named in regulationDORA → Multi-Region Failover & Resilience Testing

Multi-Model Router & Fallback Abstraction

44% of use cases

Abstraction layer decoupling application logic from model providers: dynamic routing on capability, cost, latency SLA and regulatory constraint (sensitive-data classes pinned to ZDR private/VPC endpoints or on-prem open-weight instances); real-time health monitoring with automatic fallback to secondary endpoints or local fine-tuned models on outage/latency spikes. Discharges resilience duties (DORA-class), prevents provider lock-in, and makes model deprecations a routing-table change instead of a re-architecture. Router decisions are logged into the decision trace — model version per event is an audit-packet field.

  • named in regulationDORA → Multi-Model Router & Fallback Abstractionprovider-outage resilience & exit strategy

Unified Incident-Response Runbook

0% of use cases

One procedure reconciling AI Act Art. 73, GDPR Art. 33 (72h), DORA and NIS2 (24h/72h) timelines and recipients.