Blog

Analysis on enterprise AI governance, inline policy enforcement, agentic AI security, and regulatory compliance.

California SB 942 AI Compliance Checklist: Ten Items Split by Who Actually Owns Each One

A working checklist for the California AI Transparency Act (SB 942), operative 2 August 2026 after AB 853 delayed it. The list is split deliberately: the provenance and detection items a covered provider owns at the generation layer, and the evidence and verification items a deployer or licensee owns in the traffic. Each item names the action, who owns it, and the evidence to produce, so nobody assumes the vendor covered their side.

Compliance & Regulationcomplianceai-governanceregulationauditai-security
Read post →

California SB 942 AI Audit Evidence: What a Deployer of Covered Generative Systems Has to Show

The California AI Transparency Act (SB 942) takes effect 2 August 2026 after AB 853 delayed it from January, and it puts content-provenance obligations on covered providers of generative image, video, and audio systems with more than one million monthly users. Watermark generation sits at the model layer, outside an HTTP proxy. The evidence an enterprise deploying or licensing those systems has to produce sits in the traffic. This walks the audit artifacts that are actually visible at the request boundary and names what is not.

Compliance & Regulationcomplianceai-governanceregulationauditai-security
Read post →

AI Governance Audit Framework: What Auditors Actually Test

An AI governance audit framework tests three layers: policy artifacts, control operation, and per-request evidence. The auditor reads the policy, samples requests, and traces each sampled request through the control to the evidence record. Programs that pass tend to share six properties. Programs that fail typically fail at the evidence layer because the audit record does not exist or is under the same control as the application generating the request. This piece walks through the framework, the six properties, and the architecture the framework depends on.

Compliance & Regulationai-governanceauditcomplianceeu-ai-actsoc-2iso-42001
Read post →

AI Agent Identity Management: From Issuing an Identity to Recording Action Lineage

Non-human identities now outnumber humans by more than 80 to 1 in the average enterprise, and every one of those tokens can call an LLM. This overview walks through what an AI agent identity is, the four-stage lifecycle from issuance to authorization to recorded action lineage, and where NIST puts the control boundary between the application and the enforcement layer.

Problem-Awareagentic-aiidentity-and-authorizationnistzero-trustai-governanceaudit
Read post →

What to Log for AI Compliance: The Eight Fields Every Per-Decision Record Needs

EU AI Act Article 19, Fannie Mae LL-2026-04, HIPAA, and SOC 2 with AI all converge on a per-decision record. The vocabulary differs across regimes. The fields do not. This piece walks through the eight fields every per-decision record needs to satisfy the converged requirement: identity of the natural person, identity of the agent, role and scopes, data classification, policy version, model and route, decision outcome, and a tamper-evident timestamp.

Compliance & Regulationai-audit-logscomplianceeu-ai-actauditregulation
Read post →

Tennessee's AI therapist-impersonation ban is now in force: the enforcement problem for healthcare chatbot deployers

Tennessee SB 1580 took effect July 1, 2026 and prohibits AI systems from presenting themselves as licensed mental-health professionals. Digital-health, EAP, and payer platforms running patient-facing conversational AI now face a concrete evidence problem: proving the model never claimed licensure across millions of conversation turns. Tennessee Attorney General enforcement applies. This piece walks through the statute, the enforcement architecture (response-side policy plus per-decision audit logs), and how the same controls extend to the 2026 state chatbot wave landing in Utah, California, and New York.

Industry Verticalshealthcare-aicomplianceregulationchatbotauditstate-ai-laws
Read post →

State of AI Compliance Q2 2026: The Regulations That Took Effect, the Enforcement Actions That Landed, and the Evidence Gaps Auditors Cited

Q2 2026 closed with the EU AI Act high-risk system requirements 60 days from effect, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac AI governance frameworks already in force, and the first major enforcement actions under the EU AI Act risk-management obligations on the docket. This quarterly mini-report walks through the regulations that took effect or shifted in Q2 2026, the enforcement and litigation actions that landed, the recurring evidence gaps auditors cited, and the architectural patterns enterprises adopted to close them.

Compliance & Regulationai-complianceeu-ai-actfannie-maehipaaquarterly-reportai-governance
Read post →

OWASP LLM10 Unbounded Consumption: The Cost, Latency, and DoS Failure Mode

OWASP LLM10 Unbounded Consumption, in the 2025 OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications, replaced the older "Model Theft" category and captures a broader failure mode: a workflow consumes model resources without effective bounds, leading to runaway cost, degraded latency, denial-of-service for legitimate callers, or wallet drain attacks against pay-per-token APIs. The mitigation surface has three layers. The application can implement budgets and quotas inside its own code. The model provider exposes rate limits and quota policies at the API. A policy gateway sits between the two and enforces identity-bound limits that the application cannot bypass.

Problem-Awareowaspllm-securityrate-limitingai-governancepolicy-enforcementcost-control
Read post →

OWASP LLM09 Misinformation: Where a Policy Gateway Reduces the Production Blast Radius

OWASP LLM09 Misinformation, in the 2025 OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications, names the risk that an LLM produces plausible but inaccurate output that downstream systems treat as authoritative. The control surface a model-side fix can address is partial. Output validation, retrieval grounding, and confidence signals each sit upstream of the request boundary. A policy gateway between authenticated users or agents and the LLM sits at a different point in the path and can enforce identity-bound rules on which calls are permitted, which prompts trigger heightened validation, and which responses get persisted with provenance metadata.

Problem-Awareowaspllm-securitymisinformationai-governancepolicy-enforcementagentic-ai
Read post →

Fannie Mae LL-2026-04: What the Lender AI Governance Mandate Requires from Mortgage Originators

On April 8, 2026, Fannie Mae issued Lender Letter LL-2026-04, a governance framework for AI and ML in mortgage origination and servicing. It takes effect August 6, 2026, 120 days after publication. Freddie Mac Section 1302.8 has been enforced since March 3, 2026. The combined GSE regime requires inventory, governance, audit trails, and disclosure on demand for AI used in any step of the loan lifecycle, including vendor AI tools the lender does not control. This piece walks through what the mandate requires, where lender deployments are exposed, and the inspection architecture that satisfies the disclosure obligation.

Industry Verticalsfannie-maemortgageai-governanceai-complianceauditlender-letter
Read post →

LLM Egress Control: The Per-Request Identity, Classification, and Audit Layer for AI Provider Traffic

LLM egress control is the request-time enforcement layer between corporate applications (and agents) and the external LLM endpoints they call. The layer reads the identity the request carries, classifies the prompt body, evaluates per-route policy, applies a pass, modify, redact, or block decision, and commits a per-decision audit record. This piece walks through the egress surface the layer covers, the policy decisions the layer commits, the audit record format, and the deployment topology that handles single-region and multi-region traffic.

AI Security Solutionsllm-egressegress-controlinline-enforcementaudit-logsai-securitypolicy-enforcement
Read post →

How to Evaluate AI Security Vendors: The 12 Questions a Production Buyer Asks Before Signing

AI security vendor evaluation produces defensible decisions when the buyer applies a fixed set of architectural and operational questions to every vendor in the matrix. The questions cover the inspection boundary, the audit record format, the policy management surface, the regulatory mapping, the operational behavior under failure, and the procurement and integration mechanics. This piece walks through the twelve questions, the answer pattern that satisfies the regulator and the security team, and the way the matrix gets used inside a procurement cycle that has to close before the EU AI Act August 2 deadline.

Comparisons & Alternativesvendor-evaluationai-securityprocurementcomplianceaudit-logseu-ai-act
Read post →