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.

CALLERUsersApplicationsAgentsrequestDEEPINSPECT GATEWAY< 50ms · fail-closedIdentityrole · env · tokenData classPII · PHI · PCIPolicy v12per-role action mapallowredactblockUPSTREAMModelsMCP toolsProvidersSIGNED FORENSIC RECORDidentity · policy · payloads · hmac

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:

Regulatory exposure
Audit outcomes
Breach narratives
Board accountability

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.

Recent thinking.

All posts →

October 14, 2026

EU AI Act for HR: Annex III Point 4 and the December 2027 Deadline

The current EU AI Act places recruitment, promotion, termination, task allocation, and worker-monitoring systems in Annex III point 4, subject to the Article 6(3) exception. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 moved the main Chapter III high-risk duties for these systems to 2 December 2027. This guide separates the duties already in force from later high-risk controls. It also covers deployer notices, logging and retention, impact assessments, and explanation rights.

Read →

October 14, 2026

Nightfall AI Alternatives: 6 DLP Buyer Paths

Compare six Nightfall AI alternatives by the control point they cover. Browser and SaaS DLP, DSPM, Microsoft 365, and routed HTTP model requests each need a different test before buying. The test reveals coverage gaps before a team signs a contract.

Read →

October 14, 2026

EU AI Act Fines: How Article 99 Sets €35M / €15M / €7.5M Tiers and Who Pays Each One

Article 99 of the EU AI Act sets three penalty tiers. €35 million or 7% of global turnover for prohibited practices. €15 million or 3% for the obligations listed in Article 99(4). €7.5 million or 1% for supplying incorrect or misleading information. The higher of the absolute figure and the percentage applies to undertakings, and the lower of the two applies to SMEs and start-ups under Article 99(6). This piece walks the exact article list behind each tier, the crossover turnover where the percentage starts to bind, and which obligations are actually live after the July 2026 omnibus deferral.

Read →