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 →
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 →
Management certification and internal control over financial reporting. Once an agent aggregates ledgers, drafts financial statements, or approves procurement variances, it sits inside the ICFR boundary: the control needs documented design, testing evidence, segregation of duties and an auditable trail of every automated adjustment.
Every model inference, data interaction and client-facing artefact is bound to an authorised supervising natural person — never to a shared service account. Required for SEC Rule 204-2 attribution, SOX segregation of duties and AI Act Art. 26 deployer oversight records.
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.