|
| 1 | +# Regulatory Alignment |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +TrustPlane provides the technical governance layer that enterprise AI deployments need to satisfy regulatory requirements. This document maps TrustPlane capabilities against four frameworks active in 2026. |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +This is a capability mapping, not a compliance certification. Formal compliance requires conformity assessment, legal review, and organizational controls beyond what any software framework provides. |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +--- |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +## EU AI Act (Enforcement: August 2, 2026) |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +For each article below, we state what it requires, how TrustPlane maps to it, and the honest gap. |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +### Article 9. Risk Management System |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +Requires: continuous lifecycle risk assessment, testing, and mitigation documentation. |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +TrustPlane: D1 through D4 scoring per session. Failure memory with TTL and recurrence tracking. 5-dimension Task Risk Profile. |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +Gap: no formal risk management system document. No testing protocol against regulatory criteria. |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +### Article 11. Technical Documentation (Annex IV) |
| 22 | + |
| 23 | +Requires: documented architecture, testing results, and risk assessment before market placement. |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +TrustPlane: design docs DESIGN-01 through DESIGN-06 exist. |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +Gap: no Annex IV formatted compliance document. Not independently audited. |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | +### Article 12. Automatic Event Logging |
| 30 | + |
| 31 | +Requires: automatic, tamper-evident logs traceable to a human operator. |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +TrustPlane: hash-chained audit trail. user_id on every audit event. Append-only by database trigger. Cannot be modified after the fact. |
| 34 | + |
| 35 | +Coverage: strong. |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +### Article 13. Transparency |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +Requires: deployers must be able to interpret system output. |
| 40 | + |
| 41 | +TrustPlane: D1 through D4 scores are interpretable dimensions. Trust tiers documented. Authorization decisions include reason, required controls, and recommended runtime. |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +Coverage: good. |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +### Article 14. Human Oversight |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +Requires: systems must enable humans to monitor, intervene, and deactivate. |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +TrustPlane: HITL approval gates on high and critical risk tasks. HUMAN_APPROVAL_RECORDED on every governed session. PROBATION demotion. Hook-level blocking (exit 2 is a hard block). Fail-closed by default. |
| 50 | + |
| 51 | +Coverage: strong. |
| 52 | + |
| 53 | +### Article 15. Accuracy and Robustness |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | +Requires: consistent performance, error handling, and resistance to adversarial inputs. |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | +TrustPlane: fail-closed hooks, D1 correctness scoring. |
| 58 | + |
| 59 | +Gap: D1 and D2 scoring not formally calibrated. No adversarial testing suite. Calibration planned for Sprint 5. |
| 60 | + |
| 61 | +### Article 19. Automatically Generated Logs |
| 62 | + |
| 63 | +Requires: logs must be automatic, not manually produced. |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +TrustPlane: audit chain written automatically on every event. No manual steps required. |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +Coverage: strong. |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +### Honest gaps for EU AI Act |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +- No Annex IV technical documentation |
| 72 | +- No formal conformity assessment |
| 73 | +- No Quality Management System (Article 17) |
| 74 | +- D1/D2 calibration deferred to Sprint 5 |
| 75 | +- No CE marking |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +--- |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | +## US: FINRA Agentic AI Supervision (2026) |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +FINRA's 2026 report identified agentic AI supervision as the emerging focal point for financial services. There is no single statute. Requirements flow through existing broker-dealer supervision rules. |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | +Key requirements: agent inventory, audit trail, human supervision of agent decisions, and the ability to reconstruct what agents did and why. |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +TrustPlane maps to: |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | +- Agent inventory: trust_subjects table tracks every agent identity across runtimes |
| 88 | +- Audit trail: hash-chained events with user_id |
| 89 | +- Human supervision: HITL gates, approval records |
| 90 | +- Reconstruction: awf audit verify, correlation_id threading across sessions |
| 91 | + |
| 92 | +Gap: no FINRA-specific reporting format. No integration with broker-dealer compliance systems. |
| 93 | + |
| 94 | +--- |
| 95 | + |
| 96 | +## UK: FCA Model Risk Management |
| 97 | + |
| 98 | +FCA applies AI governance under existing model risk management frameworks. No new AI-specific law is expected before late 2026. |
| 99 | + |
| 100 | +Key requirements: model identification, validation, ongoing monitoring, bias testing, and board reporting. |
| 101 | + |
| 102 | +TrustPlane maps to: |
| 103 | + |
| 104 | +- Model identification: trust_subjects per runtime |
| 105 | +- Ongoing monitoring: D1 through D4 scoring per session, trust capability profile updated after every session |
| 106 | +- Audit assurance: tamper-evident audit chain |
| 107 | + |
| 108 | +Gap: no bias testing. No board reporting format. D1/D2 not independently validated. |
| 109 | + |
| 110 | +--- |
| 111 | + |
| 112 | +## Singapore: MAS AI Risk Management Guidelines (2026) |
| 113 | + |
| 114 | +MAS released consultation guidelines in November 2025. A 12-month transition is expected after finalization. Five pillars: data governance, model accountability, transparency, human oversight, and risk management. |
| 115 | + |
| 116 | +TrustPlane maps to: |
| 117 | + |
| 118 | +- Model accountability: D1 through D4 trust scoring per agent per task class |
| 119 | +- Transparency: interpretable authorization decisions with reasons |
| 120 | +- Human oversight: HITL gates, approval records |
| 121 | +- Risk management: 5-dimension Task Risk Profile, failure memory |
| 122 | + |
| 123 | +Gap: the data governance pillar requires data lineage tracking. TrustPlane does not govern training data or model selection. |
| 124 | + |
| 125 | +--- |
| 126 | + |
| 127 | +## Summary Table |
| 128 | + |
| 129 | +| Requirement | EU AI Act | FINRA | FCA | MAS | |
| 130 | +|---|---|---|---|---| |
| 131 | +| Audit trail | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong | |
| 132 | +| Human oversight | Strong | Strong | Partial | Strong | |
| 133 | +| Risk classification | Partial | Partial | Partial | Partial | |
| 134 | +| Transparency | Good | Good | Good | Good | |
| 135 | +| Formal documentation | Gap | Gap | Gap | Gap | |
| 136 | +| Calibrated scoring | Gap | Gap | Gap | Gap | |
| 137 | + |
| 138 | +--- |
| 139 | + |
| 140 | +## What TrustPlane provides today |
| 141 | + |
| 142 | +The four capabilities every AI governance framework requires: |
| 143 | + |
| 144 | +1. Automatic tamper-evident audit trail with a human actor on every event |
| 145 | +2. Pre-execution human approval gates for high-risk work |
| 146 | +3. Risk classification before agent execution |
| 147 | +4. Interpretable trust scores and authorization decisions |
| 148 | + |
| 149 | +## What requires additional work |
| 150 | + |
| 151 | +- Annex IV and other formal compliance documentation |
| 152 | +- Conformity assessment (EU AI Act) |
| 153 | +- D1/D2 calibration (Sprint 5) |
| 154 | +- Adversarial testing suite |
| 155 | +- Reporting formats for specific regulators |
| 156 | +- Legal review and counsel |
0 commit comments