Zero-Trust enforcement for enterprise AI.
DeepInspect authorizes, redacts, or blocks every AI request inline, then writes a cryptographically signed forensic record for regulatory defense.
Four surfaces of the AI governance problem, one control plane.
The gateway sits in the request path with sub-50ms overhead, evaluates policy, and writes an evidence-grade record before the response is released.
Intelligent Security
Identity- and data-aware enforcement. Inline. Fail-closed.
Verifiable Governance
HMAC-signed forensic record for every decision.
Cost & Routing
Tier-based model routing, failover, per-token attribution.
Agent & MCP Governance
Per-tool policy and signed agent traces across every hop.
Who Owns AI Governance Liability in an Enterprise?
AI governance is a responsibility boundary. Regulators and boards want enforcement records, not dashboards.
The boundary falls on the enterprise rather than the model provider. Provider terms of service place contractual responsibility for how a model is used inside a customer environment on the customer. A regulatory inquiry about a specific AI decision reaches the CISO and the compliance officer, and the durable answer is a runtime record of how each AI request was handled together with the policy version in effect at the time.
Enterprises own:
Each obligation maps to an operational record only the enterprise can produce. Regulatory exposure resolves when the enterprise shows the specific decisions the system made and the policy versions in effect. Audit outcomes improve when the auditor reads records that each carry a per-record cryptographic signature verifiable on its own. Breach narratives hold together when every AI interaction in the sequence carries its own integrity proof. Board accountability follows the pattern of financial controls, signed attestations rather than best-effort summaries.
Governance requires reconstruction of who accessed what data and why a decision was allowed.
The risk lives in ungoverned AI usage inside your enterprise.
Point your AI client at the gateway. Nothing else changes.
Enforcement activates gradually from observe mode to enforce mode, per application and per data class. Application code stays intact.
Product
Inline enforcement between callers and models.
Identity-aware policy, deterministic evaluation, fail-closed by default. Sub-50ms overhead in the request path.
Forensics
Signed record for every AI decision.
Reconstruct any interaction. Verify integrity per record.
Architecture
Deterministic policy engine, default-deny posture.
Deploys inline. Payload-agnostic. Provider-neutral.
< 50ms
Gateway overhead
100%
Decisions signed
6+
Providers supported
HMAC
Per-record integrity
Recent thinking.
All posts →October 11, 2026
GDPR Article 22 Automated Decision-Making: What LLM-Driven Workflows Owe Data Subjects
Article 22 of the GDPR gives data subjects the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing that produces legal effects or similarly significant effects. AI and LLM-driven workflows that screen candidates, approve credit, set insurance prices, or trigger fraud holds fall inside the article when no meaningful human review breaks the chain. The control that survives a regulator review proves identity of the human reviewer, classification of the input data, the policy state at decision time, and the outcome returned. This walkthrough covers the article text, the meaningful-human-review test, and the audit-record content that satisfies a Data Protection Authority.
October 11, 2026
AI Vendor Security Questionnaire: 38 Questions and Red Flags
These 38 AI vendor security questions test model coverage, provider retention, identity handling, per-decision audit records, policy enforcement, prompt injection, data residency, regulatory alignment, and incident response. Each names the evidence a procurement review should demand.
October 10, 2026
AI Governance Tools Compared by Production Control
AI governance tools serve four production jobs: model registry, GRC policy, AI inventory, and runtime request control. This comparison shows the record each category creates, the regulatory evidence it can support, and the production control a regulated program still needs for each LLM request.