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 →
Pick the components you have to put in place. For each one you get the build-vs-buy reading and the market layer that supplies it, with the same scored recommendations and confidence the full analysis uses. Nothing is stored; the selection lives in the URL.
Target market(s)European UnionUnited States (federal)change
Legally-driven components are flagged when their requiring regulation sits outside your selected markets.
No market layer in the graph supplies this component — treat it as in-house engineering (or propose the missing supplier layer).
Required by: ADGM Data Protection Regulations 2021 (AE), APPI (JP), Data Protection Act 2019 (KE), Data Protection Law 058/2021 (RW), DIFC Data Protection Law No. 5/2020 (AE), DPDP Act 2023 (IN), LGPD 13.709/2018 (BR), Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, PDP Law 27/2022 (ID), PDPA (SG), PDPL (SA), PIPA (KR), PIPEDA (CA), PIPL (CN), POPIA (ZA), Privacy Act 1988 + 2024 Amendment (AU), Revised FADP (CH), UK GDPR / DPA 2018 as amended by DUAA 2025 in forcein forceunverified — help verifyunverified — help verifyin forcein forcein forcein forcein forcein forcein forcein forcein forcein forcein forcein forcein forcein force
Legally required in AE, JP, KE, RW, IN, BR, NG, ID, SG, SA, KR, CA, CN, ZA, AU, CH, GB — none of your selected markets carry this driver; treat it as a market-specific requirement, not a universal one. Help verify coverage →
Secure Boot & Hardened Runtimebuild in-houseEU
No market layer in the graph supplies this component — treat it as in-house engineering (or propose the missing supplier layer).
Community-maintained, disputable examples — not an endorsement and not a ranking. Alignments are as claimed by vendors or the source compilation, not verified by RAIN; a certification is shown as a certification only where a certificate or registry reference is recorded.
Disclosure: RAI·N·avigator operates in this category too, so we have a commercial interest in any comparison here. That is why this layer maps product classes to control objectives and lists named products as community-maintained examples — we publish no rankings, no quadrants and no coverage assertions about any vendor, including ourselves.
Select on
Append-only guarantees and who can rotate or delete (including the vendor); anchoring mechanism (qualified timestamp, transparency log, notarisation) and whether verification works without the vendor; retention and export in a readable format at end of contract; throughput and cost at your event volume.
Why this confidence
1 in-scope component of this use case is supplied by this layer (WORM / Immutable Audit Vault) — a direct supplied_by path in the graph.
The catalog use-case match is strong, so the component set this layer was derived from is reliable.
High-risk tier: this layer carries mandatory Chapter III duties, so some tooling in it is non-optional.
2 community-maintained example vendors recorded on the layer node.
Selection metrics for this layer are documented, so the shortlist can be compared objectively.
Only 1 of 3 components this layer supplies are in your scope — evaluate a narrow subset of its capabilities.