Describe one AI use case through a guided discovery. Get its binding obligations across 10 jurisdictions, mapped to 23 controls, as an auditable dossier your legal, risk and product teams can actually file.
Jurisdictions covered
Governance controls
Control domains
With binding law today
Form builders collect answers. This resolves them — against a maintained regulatory dataset, with the reasoning attached to every cell.
No model guesswork. Every obligation is derived by explicit, versioned rules over a maintained regulatory dataset — the same input always produces the same dossier.
Contradictions, unsupported assumptions and missing facts in your intake are surfaced inline before they become an audit finding.
Obligations are consolidated into a unified control checklist so one implementation closes the same requirement across every jurisdiction in scope.
A stamped dossier with verdict, per-jurisdiction rationale, obligation matrix, roadmap and assumptions ledger. Print to PDF, export Markdown or JSON.
Use-case descriptions never leave the browser. Nothing is stored on a server, which makes pilot approval a conversation instead of a procurement cycle.
Each cell carries the instrument behind it and each milestone the date it bites, so counsel can verify the reasoning rather than trust it.
Seven guided steps: purpose, geography, role in the value chain, system type, decision impact, data and a prohibited-practice screen.
A running preview shows obligations appear and disappear as answers change, with a change feed explaining what each answer triggered.
Get a verdict, a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction classification, a 23 × 10 obligation matrix and a NOW / NEXT / LATER roadmap with statutory dates.
EU AI Act (2024/1689, as amended by Digital Omnibus 2026) · GDPR Art 22
Colorado SB 24-205 · Texas TRAIGA · NYC Local Law 144 · California SB 53 / SB 942 / AB 2013 · Illinois HB 3773 · Federal soft law (OMB, NIST AI RMF)
Pro-innovation framework (regulator guidance) · UK GDPR Art 22
GenAI Interim Measures · Algorithm Recommendation Provisions · Deep Synthesis Provisions · AI Content Labeling Measures
AI Framework Act (live Jan 2026) · Enforcement Decree
AI Promotion Act 2025 · METI / MIC AI Guidelines
Voluntary GenAI Code of Conduct · Directive on Automated Decision-Making · Quebec Law 25
PL 2338/2023 (pending) · LGPD Art 20 (binding)
MeitY advisories · IT Rules synthetic-media amendment · DPDP Act (adjacent)
Model AI Governance Framework (+ GenAI) · AI Verify
Triage inbound AI use cases without re-reading six statutes each time. Every conclusion is traceable to the instrument that produced it.
Consistent classification across business units, an assumptions ledger for every judgement call, and evidence you can hand to an auditor.
Know at design time whether a feature is prohibited, high-risk or transparency-only — before the build, not after the launch review.
Assess third-party AI in the same frame as your own, including deployer duties that do not transfer with the contract.
The engine runs client-side; no use-case content is transmitted or retained.
SSO/SAML, SCIM provisioning and role separation for reviewers and approvers.
Versioned dataset and deterministic rules mean any dossier can be re-derived exactly.
For individual assessors
For governance functions
For regulated groups
No. It is a structured discovery instrument that maps a described use case to published regulatory obligations. It is designed to make counsel faster, not to replace them.
In your browser. The rules engine and the obligation dataset ship with the application, so use-case descriptions are never transmitted or stored.
The obligation dataset is versioned and dated. Every dossier records the dataset version it was produced under so past assessments remain reproducible.
Yes, on Enterprise. The control set and jurisdiction list are data, not code, and can be extended to your internal framework.
Find out where in five minutes.