Analysis on enterprise AI governance, inline policy enforcement, agentic AI security, and regulatory compliance.
Compare six BigID alternatives by the job they perform: DSPM, DLP, AI-app visibility, provider guardrails, a custom proxy, or live LLM API enforcement. Each category covers a different request path and produces different evidence for privacy, security, and AI reviews.
Read post →South Korea''s AI Basic Act places its obligations on the operator rather than the model, which means most of them resolve to a technical control in the request path. This maps the high-impact duties, the generative AI transparency duties, and the inspection-response duty onto the enforcement point that satisfies each one, names the evidence produced, and marks the two duties that sit outside the AI request boundary and require organisational work instead.
Read post →California finalized its ADMT, risk assessment and cybersecurity audit regulations on 23 September 2025, effective 1 January 2026, with ADMT-specific requirements beginning January 1, 2027. This maps the CCPA and CPRA duties that apply when personal information reaches a model, from pre-use notice through opt-out, access, and appeal, to the control and evidence each requires.
Read post →OCC model risk AI audit evidence should connect a bank-approved LLM use case to the routed request population and reviewer-selected samples, then connect model and policy changes to monitoring results, exceptions, and third-party oversight. This guide reflects OCC Bulletin 2026-13, which replaced the 2011 model-risk guidance and excludes generative and agentic AI from its direct scope.
Read post →This FFIEC AI compliance checklist turns technology-neutral examination themes into eight gradable checks for AI governance, inventory, risk, lifecycle controls, access, logging, providers, and assurance. Each check names an accountable owner, pass criteria, retained evidence, and the condition that sends the item to remediation.
Read post →This FINRA AI compliance checklist gives broker-dealers seven gradable checks for use-case scope, written supervision, communications review, books and records, vendor oversight, access and routing, and evidence testing. Every check names an owner, pass condition, evidence, and remediation trigger while preserving the firm’s responsibility for each regulatory judgment.
Read post →This GxP AI controls mapping connects FDA 21 CFR Part 11 and EU GMP Annex 11 requirements to a control point, accountable owner, repeatable test, retained evidence, explicit gap, and retest state. It separates regulated-system validation and quality decisions from the narrower routed request decision evidence an authenticated HTTP LLM gateway can produce.
Read post →FFIEC AI audit evidence should let an examiner start from a complete population of AI systems, providers, releases, changes, incidents, and exceptions, then select samples and reconstruct what happened. This guide applies technology-neutral FFIEC examination procedures to AI without presenting them as a dedicated AI rule.
Read post →This GxP AI compliance checklist turns FDA 21 CFR Part 11 and EU GMP Annex 11 into eight gradable checks for scope, intended use, suppliers, validation, access, audit trails, change control, retention, and routed LLM traffic. Every check names an action, owner, pass condition, evidence artifact, and remediation trigger while preserving the regulated organization''s validation responsibility.
Read post →FINRA AI audit evidence should let a reviewer select an AI-assisted communication or supervisory event and reconstruct the user, input, model destination, output, review, approval, policy decision, and retained business record. This guide defines the evidence population, sample joins, integrity tests, and request-gateway boundary for broker-dealers.
Read post →AI governance for professional services should approve work at the client-matter level, where contractual restrictions, confidentiality, team access, data classes, model routes, and review duties can be joined in one operating record. Firmwide vendor approval supplies a baseline. Engagement owners still need to authorize each use, preserve source and disposition evidence, and reopen the decision when the scope, model, connector, or client terms change.
Read post →GxP AI audit evidence should connect a regulated use and approved requirements to risk, validation, change control, access, operation, incidents, audit trails, retention, and historical retrieval. This guide separates FDA 21 CFR Part 11 scope from EU GMP Annex 11 expectations and limits an HTTP gateway to routed request decision evidence, never validation of the regulated system.
Read post →