73 posts on industry verticals.
CISOs are accountable for AI risk in front of boards that ask for specific numbers, specific incidents, and specific evidence. The post-authentication gap, the self-attestation problem, and the inline enforcement requirement are the three architectural facts that shape the answer.
AI compliance officers are accountable for evidence that survives a regulatory review. EU AI Act Article 12, Fannie Mae LL-2026-04, NIST AI RMF, and HIPAA each require per-decision records of AI activity, independent of the application that made the decision.
AI platform engineers operate the gateway, the model routing, the identity plumbing, and the eval pipeline that production AI runs on. Adding inline enforcement and per-decision audit at the request boundary determines whether the platform can absorb the security and compliance asks.
Heads of Security own the production controls that prevent damage at machine speed. AI traffic is the data channel where the controls have to operate. The Mandiant 22-second handoff window and the IBM shadow AI numbers determine what counts as a working control today.
AI platform leads operate the gateway, the model registry, the eval pipeline, and the identity plumbing that production AI runs on. The choice of an enforcement layer at the AI request boundary determines whether security and compliance are absorbed by the platform or pushed onto feature teams.
B2B SaaS founders shipping AI features face a new gate in every enterprise sales cycle: the AI security questionnaire. The questions trace back to specific regulations the customer is subject to (EU AI Act, HIPAA, SOC 2, DORA) and ask whether the SaaS product produces evidence the customer can use in its own audit. This piece walks through the seven questions that appear most often, what the answer has to demonstrate architecturally, and where most AI features fall short.
Cloud Radix reports that 57% of healthcare professionals use unauthorized AI to process PHI without a Business Associate Agreement. The HHS Office for Civil Rights treats unauthorized PHI disclosure as a breach regardless of intent. This piece walks through what HIPAA actually requires for AI processing of PHI, where most healthcare AI deployments are exposed, and the inspection architecture that produces the access logs and access controls HIPAA expects.
DORA took effect January 2025 across the EU financial sector and overlaps with the EU AI Act on the high-risk AI systems banks operate. The combined obligation includes operational resilience, third-party risk management, incident reporting, and per-decision audit records for AI-assisted financial decisions. This piece walks through what DORA actually requires of AI systems, how Article 6 and Annex III of the EU AI Act layer on top, and the architecture that satisfies both.
Life and health insurance pricing using AI is classified as high-risk under EU AI Act Annex III point 5(c). The NAIC Model Bulletin on the Use of AI Systems by Insurers adopted in December 2023 has been incorporated by twenty-five US state insurance regulators as of 2025. Colorado SB21-169 sets concrete obligations for life insurers using external consumer data. The combined regime requires per-decision audit records, governance documentation, third-party risk management, and demonstrable testing for unfair discrimination across protected classes.
ABA Formal Opinion 512, issued July 29, 2024, sets the duty of competence, confidentiality, and supervision standards for lawyers using generative AI tools. Model Rule 1.6 confidentiality, Rule 1.1 competence, and Rule 5.3 supervision of nonlawyer assistance all attach to AI workflows that touch client information. State bar opinions from California, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania add jurisdiction-specific overlays. The architecture that supports a defensible position under examination is per-decision audit records that show what client data the AI received and what the firm did with the output.
OMB Memorandum M-24-10, issued March 28, 2024, set the AI governance baseline for federal civilian agencies including risk management for rights-impacting and safety-impacting AI, a Chief AI Officer designation, and public inventories of AI use cases. The Office of Personnel Management AI guidance, the Department of Homeland Security AI framework, and DOD Responsible AI Strategy add agency-specific obligations. The NIST AI Risk Management Framework provides the technical baseline. State-level laws including Colorado SB 24-205, Connecticut SB 2, and California AB 2930 add overlays on state-agency and state-contractor AI. The architecture that supports the OMB-required risk management has the same shape as private-sector high-risk AI compliance.
Clinicians using generative AI to draft SOAP notes from ambient recordings of patient encounters trigger the HIPAA Security Rule the moment PHI enters the prompt. The audit controls expectation under 45 CFR 164.312(b), the access control expectation under 164.312(a), and the transmission security expectation under 164.312(e) all attach. Vendor BAAs cover the vendor side; the covered entity has to produce its own evidence on its own side of the API. This piece walks through the architecture that satisfies the Security Rule for ambient-AI scribe workflows.