The regulatory collision is here. The EU AI Act, SEC anti-fraud sweeps, FTC algorithmic disgorgement orders, Colorado SB 205, DORA, and SOX internal control mandates have converged simultaneously.
Your legacy GRC platforms (ServiceNow, Archer, OneTrust, LogicGate) store subjective, post-hoc attestations in mutable databases. But when regulators demand mathematical proof that an autonomous agent complied with policy at 2:47 PM on a Tuesday, a checkbox won’t protect your C-suite from personal liability. AI Standards delivers real-time policy enforcement and cryptographically verifiable proof of compliance, anchored to an immutable ledger and backed by 116 patent-pending applications.
Legacy GRC records what you intended to happen in a static PDF. It cannot intercept, govern, or kill a nondeterministic agent action before it executes against production databases or customer records.
Compliance logs stored in standard SQL databases can be edited, deleted, or backdated. Under SEC, DOJ, and EU court standards, mutable database rows do not provide legally defensible chain of custody. Immutable, cryptographic proof is the new evidentiary standard. Its existence will progressively degrade the credibility of lesser forms of evidence.
85% of enterprise AI lives inside third-party SaaS: Salesforce Agentforce, Microsoft Copilot, and Workday. The EU AI Act and Colorado SB 205 hold you legally liable as the Deployer, while your vendors hide behind closed-source black boxes and ironclad liability disclaimers.
Under SOX 906 ($5M / 20 years), SEC Rule 10b-5, and DOJ certification mandates, executives are personally certifying control environments they cannot observe, measure, or mathematically verify. A checkbox is not a defense.
The FTC and global DPAs now mandate algorithmic disgorgement: court ordered destruction of trained models, weights, and embeddings derived from disputed data. Paper compliance cannot prove data lineage. Only cryptographic provenance saves the asset.
Our governance architecture operates as a closed-loop system. Every AI decision passes through five verifiable stages, each backed by filed patent applications.
Shadow AI census, autonomous enterprise cartography, agent discovery. Find every AI system operating in your enterprise, including the ones nobody told compliance about. You can’t govern what you can’t see.*
Automated risk classification and multi-jurisdictional regulatory obligation mapping across EU AI Act, SEC, SOX, FTC, HIPAA, DORA, Basel, Colorado SB 205, and ISO 42001. Know which rules apply to which systems, at article level, across every jurisdiction simultaneously.*
Pre-execution decision screening, bi-directional inference guardrails, real-time behavioral monitoring. Stop bad decisions before they execute against production systems, customer records, or financial ledgers.*
Zero-knowledge compliance proofs, formal mathematical verification, conservation law auditing. Prove compliance to regulators and courts without exposing internal workflows, customer data, or proprietary technology.*
Immutable XRPL ledger recording, SOC-AI Type II certification, quantum-safe provenance. Evidence that cannot be altered, forged, backdated, or decrypted. Admissible in any court, in any jurisdiction.*
*Patent-pending. AI Standards Inc.
We map our evidence artifacts to specific regulatory articles and sections, not just claim compliance.
| Framework | Key Articles/Sections | AIS Evidence Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | Arts. 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | Continuous runtime verification, ZKP audit receipts* |
| GDPR/CCPA | Arts. 17, 20, 22, 25, 32 | Cryptographic tombstones, data portability audits* |
| SOX (302/404) | Sections 302, 404, PCAOB AS5 | Automated segregation of duties, XRPL-anchored controls* |
| HIPAA | §164.312 Security Rule | Zero-egress sovereign compute, tamper-evident access logs* |
| NIST AI RMF | Govern, Map, Measure, Manage | Closed-loop governance with provable evidence chains* |
| ISO 42001 | Full AIMS clause mapping | Continuous certification with cryptographic verification* |
| SEC Disclosures | Material risk, Form 10-K | Decision lineage with immutable provenance* |
| FTC Section 5 | Unfair/deceptive practices | Behavioral fingerprinting, vendor SLA verification* |
| NIST FIPS 203/204/205 | PQC Standards | Post-quantum digital signatures, crypto-agile versioning* |
| ITAR/FedRAMP | Export controls, IL4/IL5 | Air-gapped sovereign deployment, zero-egress architecture* |
Enterprise AI deploys inside departments, each with distinct regulatory exposure. Our EDIE platform delivers purpose-built AI modules per department, each pre-mapped to its governing compliance frameworks.
| Department | Modules | Primary Compliance Frameworks |
|---|---|---|
| IT & Cybersecurity | 10 | NIST CSF, FedRAMP, DORA, PCI DSS 4.0, ISO 27001 |
| Finance (SAP) | 9 | SOX 302/404/906, SEC Disclosures, Basel III/IV, IFRS |
| Compliance & GRC | 10 | EU AI Act, ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, Colorado SB 205 |
| Legal | 10 | FTC §5, GDPR Art. 22, Algorithmic Disgorgement, eDiscovery |
| HR & People | 9 | EEOC, NYC LL 144, Colorado SB 205, GDPR, ADA |
| Sales & Revenue | 8 | SEC AI-Washing (10b-5), FTC §5, CAN-SPAM, TCPA |
| Operations & Supply Chain | 9 | ITAR, EU CSDDD, Basel III/IV, PCI DSS 4.0 |
| Marketing | 8 | FTC §5, GDPR, California AB 2013/SB 942, CCPA |
| Customer Success | 8 | CCPA/CPRA, GDPR, HIPAA (healthcare), FTC §5 |
| R&D & Engineering | 10 | ITAR, ISO 42001, Open Source Compliance, NIST AI RMF |
| Executive & Board | 10 | SOX 906, SEC 10b-5, Fiduciary Duty, DORA Board Liability |
Why this matters: When your HR team deploys an AI screening tool, the compliance obligations are fundamentally different from when your finance team deploys an AI forecasting model. Generic GRC platforms treat all AI the same. We govern each department against its specific regulatory exposure, automatically.
The risk: DOJ now requires CCOs to personally sign certifications that compliance programs are “reasonably designed, implemented, and tested.” Falsely certifying a checkbox GRC program creates direct criminal obstruction liability.
What we deliver: Continuous, automated evidence generation across 13+ frameworks. Real-time regulatory change tracking. Board-ready compliance dashboards that prove your program works mathematically, not rhetorically.
The risk: The SEC v. SolarWinds precedent established that CISOs face personal civil fraud charges for gaps between internal technical reality and external security statements. Shadow AI and third-party agent deployments are the next frontier.
What we deliver: Enterprise-wide Shadow AI census. Behavioral integrity monitoring across every agent. Real-time threat containment with pre-execution interception. Cryptographic proof that your security posture matches your public disclosures.
The risk: Algorithmic disgorgement, meaning court ordered destruction of trained models and derived data, is now a standard FTC remedy. Without provable data lineage, a single enforcement action can destroy millions in proprietary IP overnight.
What we deliver: Litigation-ready decision provenance with immutable chain of custody. Cryptographic data lineage from training through inference. Zero-knowledge compliance proofs that satisfy regulators without exposing trade secrets.
The risk: SOX 906 carries criminal penalties up to $5M and 20 years in federal prison for executives who certify financial statements while AI-driven forecasting, revenue recognition, or journal entries operate without deterministic controls.
What we deliver: Automated segregation of duties for AI-augmented financial workflows. XRPL-anchored internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR). Quantified risk exposure dashboards that turn compliance from cost center to demonstrable fiduciary shield.
The risk: 85% of enterprise AI is embedded in third-party SaaS. Under deployer liability rules, your organization owns the regulatory exposure for models you cannot inspect, version, or validate.
What we deliver: Model identity attestation and vendor integrity verification at runtime. Deterministic drift detection. Cryptographic model version pinning that proves the model requested is the model executing, with no silent substitution.
The risk: Under DORA, board members are personally accountable for AI operational risk. Under SEC 10b-5, CEOs face personal liability for AI-washing, which means overstating capabilities to inflate valuations. The board cannot claim ignorance.
What we deliver: Fiduciary defensibility via aggregate risk dashboards with immutable provenance. Patent-protected governance moat across 116 filed applications. The board can cryptographically prove that it governed responsibly.
Every capability described on this page is protected by filed provisional patent applications. This is a filed, timestamped, legally defensible body of intellectual property covering AI governance, compliance automation, behavioral integrity, decision accountability, zero-knowledge verification, and quantum-safe provenance.
We didn't just build a compliance tool. We built the standards layer for AI, and we filed the patents to prove it.
Request a complimentary AI Compliance Assessment. Our team will map your current AI governance posture against the 13 regulatory frameworks that matter and show you exactly where the gaps are.