Compliance mapping
What the evidence answers, and where it stops.
For compliance, risk and audit leads: what BitExact gives you when a regulator, an examiner or your own model-risk team asks what an AI agent did. Each answer below is in plain language first; the mechanism and its limit are in the drawer beneath it.
- What you get A sealed, signed record of each agent run: every model and tool call that goes through BitExact, in order, with any change to it detectable.
- What you don't Proof that nothing happened outside it. A call that bypasses BitExact is not in the record, and BitExact never says you are compliant.
- Who checks it Your examiner, on their own machine, with a free open-source verifier. No BitExact software, license or account on their side.
What to show an examiner
When someone asks what an agent did, you hand over four things, and they check the first two without trusting you or us.
- The evidence for exactly what was asked. An evidence pack scoped to the request: one workflow, one case, one agent, one period. Nothing outside the scope travels with it.
- The verifier's verdict, on their machine. They run the open verifier on
the pack.
0means intact and signed,2means something was altered (it names the step and the field),3means intact but with a declared gap in what was captured. - The reading view and the workpaper. A page of the runs that opens offline in any browser, and a summary. They help a person read the evidence; they are not the verdict.
- The limits, stated. What the record does not hold: calls outside capture, fields scrubbed before they were written, and any gap the run declared. Each is on the record, not left for the examiner to find.
Technical detailHide technical detail
Signed evidence bundles are verified independently by the Apache-2.0 verifier on an
air-gapped machine, with no BitExact software or license required by the authority.
export writes the bundle as JSON, DSSE or JSONL; the evidence pack carries
the workpaper and a reading view of the runs that opens offline in any browser. The reading
view and workpaper are not verification results, and transferring a copy to a regulator is
the firm's act. Workflow and selection evidence packs also carry every execution BitExact
refused to record, and the verifier checks those refusals too.
EU AI Act: Article 12 (record-keeping), Article 19, Article 26
When it applies: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 (the AI Omnibus, in force 27 July 2026) moved the high-risk obligations for stand-alone Annex III systems, creditworthiness assessment among them, to 2 December 2027, and for AI embedded in Annex I products to 2 August 2028. The obligations were not withdrawn. Checked 2026-08-30.
Automatic recording of events over the system's lifetime (Art. 12(1)) Every model and tool call that goes through BitExact is recorded as it happens.
Every model call (request and response, byte-level, streaming included), tool call, and captured nondeterminism that routes through the proxy or a wrapped client lands in a hash-chained manifest as the run executes; a call made entirely out of band is not in the record. In Python code, the determinism linter flags the usual causes - a direct HTTP call, a model client that is not wrapped - before they ship.
Executions that were not recorded If BitExact could not record a run, the run still happens, and the record says it went unrecorded and why.
An execution BitExact refused to record (a lapsed license, a missing or unlicensed recorder key, a faulty signer or store) still runs, and its refusal is a hash-chained event, signed with the recorder key when one loads and entered in the transparency log. Capture coverage counts it as an execution without evidence, workflow and selection evidence packs carry it, and the open-source verifier checks it. The record says that an execution went unrecorded and why; it holds nothing of what the execution did.
Logging that enables traceability (Art. 12(2)) Each run is in order, time-stamped, and sealed when it ends, so a cut-off run shows.
Entries are ordered, timestamped, and content-committed. SDK runs open with an environment fingerprint and close with a terminal seal, so a completed run is distinguishable from a truncated one; proxy-recorded runs are the raw call chain, where the cross-checked head record and signed checkpoints detect tail truncation. The public verifier enforces the seal rules, so this distinction holds in an independently checked bundle.
Integrity of logs against alteration Tamper-evident: any edit is detected by the examiner's own tool.
BLAKE2b-256 hash chain (SHA-256 in FIPS mode) over salted data commitments detects any in-place alteration; head records are cross-checked on every read and, when a recorder key is configured, hybrid Ed25519 + ML-DSA signed, hash-linked checkpoints attest the chain head during recording. Anti-rollback is anchored by exported signed bundles held by the relying party: the signature pins the head and the complete checkpoint set.
Provision of logs to authorities (Art. 19, Art. 26) You hand over a file; the authority checks it without us.
Signed evidence bundles verified independently by the Apache-2.0 verifier on an air-gapped machine, with no BitExact software or license required by the authority. Retention lives in the customer's store; BitExact produces and verifies the record, and it is not the archive of record unless the export target is.
Human oversight (Art. 14) A reviewer's approval, rejection or edit is recorded beside the step it reviewed.
record_human_decision commits approvals, rejections, and edits as evidence,
optionally bound to the reviewed step. It records the deployer's assertion that oversight
occurred and what was decided, never proof of it; it does not implement or enforce the
oversight control.
Data minimization and erasure alongside retention A value can be removed later and the record still verifies, showing that something was there.
Per-entry redaction removes payload and salt while the chain and signature still verify: the record proves content existed and was committed to, without revealing it.
Incident reconstruction (Art. 73 serious-incident reporting) Replay the run exactly, offline, and see where anything differs.
Bit-exact replay re-executes the recorded run offline; divergence from the record halts with the exact step and a diff. Counterfactual fork answers "what would have happened if…", recorded as an explicitly synthetic branch that can never be presented as what production did.
Federal Reserve / OCC: model risk management
SR 11-7 was superseded on 17 April 2026 by SR 26-2, which is principles-based, is most relevant to organizations above $30 billion in total assets, states that it does not set forth enforceable standards, and places generative and agentic AI outside its scope. The properties below are what BitExact provides for model governance; they are not offered as compliance with any current supervisory guidance.
A record of model use, its inputs and outputs Each run shows which model version was asked what, and what it answered.
Per-run trajectory with model and model-version identity and the exact inputs and outputs captured. Evidence of individual runs; not a substitute for the institution's validation program.
Model validation with reproducible outputs Measure whether the same request gets the same answer, and keep the result as a signed report.
The determinism-qualification harness measures byte-exact output stability over N identical requests and emits a self-hashed, optionally signed report.
Ongoing monitoring of model changes Before a change ships, replay past decisions against it and see which would have flipped.
bitexact regress replays the recorded run corpus against changed prompts or
code offline and reports flipped decisions, signed: the first divergence in each run
proven, later findings marked conditional. It detects divergence in replayable behavior;
behavior outside the captured boundary is invisible.
Documentation an examiner can rely on Provider request IDs, retries and failures are on the record, not just the final answer.
Evidence bundles carry provider correlation IDs (x-request-id), rate-limit
context, retry sequences, and upstream failures as first-class recorded events.
FINRA: Rules 4511, 3110, 2210
None of these rows says a firm meets SEC or FINRA requirements; each row states evidence and its limit. FINRA's rules apply to a firm's use of AI agents as they apply to any other technology (Regulatory Notice 24-09); no FINRA rule specific to AI exists. Each quote is verbatim from FINRA's rulebook or guidance, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Make and preserve books and records (4511(a)) Each agent run is a sealed record of its calls, checks and reviews. Whether it is a required record is your call.
Members shall make and preserve books and records as required under the FINRA rules,
the Exchange Act and the applicable Exchange Act rules.
Each run is an ordered, hash-chained, sealed record of the agent's model and tool calls, its policy checks and its asserted reviews. Whether an agent run is a required book or record is the firm's determination; BitExact records what routes through capture, never the firm's complete books.
Preserve for at least six years where no other period applies (4511(b)) Each run carries a deletion floor, and nothing is deleted before it.
Members shall preserve for a period of at least six years those FINRA books and records
for which there is no specified period under the FINRA rules or applicable Exchange Act
rules.
A committed retention_deadline is a deletion floor that
purge --delete honors; for a run that committed none, the default its workflow
declares (workflow set-retention) is the floor, which purge names
when it holds the run and bitexact workflow show prints, and
bitexact retention lists runs without a deadline. Six years is only the default
(communications are three years under 17a-4(b)), the deadline is the deployer's assertion,
and archiving is allowed under the floor, into the customer's storage.
Preserve in a format and media that complies with SEA Rule 17a-4 (4511(c)) Only if your deployment, including where you archive, meets 17a-4(f).
All books and records required to be made pursuant to the FINRA rules shall be
preserved in a format and media that complies with SEA Rule 17a-4.
See the 17a-4(f) rows. BitExact is not itself a 17a-4 recordkeeping system unless the deployment, including the archive target, meets paragraph (f).
A supervisory system and written procedures (3110(a), (a)(1), (b)(1)) Evidence your supervisory system can use. BitExact is not the supervisory system.
Each member shall establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each
associated person that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable
securities laws and regulations, and with applicable FINRA rules.
Evidence a supervisory system can use: identity and delegation per run, each guardrail's
policy_check verdict, approvals and promotions on the workflow ledger, and
investigation cases with findings. BitExact is not a supervisory system: it records any
policy engine's verdict and never establishes, enforces or tests the procedures.
Review by a registered principal, evidenced in writing (3110(b)(2), (b)(4), .07) The review is recorded beside what was reviewed. Who the reviewer is, and whether the review was adequate, is yours.
Reviews of correspondence and internal communications must be conducted by a
registered principal and must be evidenced in writing, either electronically or on
paper.
Merely opening a communication is not sufficient review.
A human_decision (actor, decision, reason, the step it binds) is chained
beside the step reviewed, and is the chronicle of the review. It is asserted by the
deployer: BitExact does not establish that the reviewer is a registered principal or that
the review was adequate. The custody chain records who opened a run; opening a run is
access, not review.
Delegation; the principal remains responsible (3110.08) The delegation is on the record. Whether it is lawful is the firm's.
the supervisor/principal remains ultimately responsible for the performance of all
necessary supervisory reviews
The delegation in the run's identity and the actor on each human_decision,
both asserted; whether the delegation is lawful is the firm's.
Retention of correspondence and internal communications (3110.09) The same retention floor; the three-year period is set by you, not assumed.
The names of the persons who prepared outgoing correspondence and who reviewed the
correspondence shall be ascertainable from the retained records
The retention floor and archive above. The three-year period of 17a-4(b) is not defaulted: the deployer commits it per run or declares it per workflow.
Customer complaints (3110(b)(5)) Not provided.
procedures to capture, acknowledge, and respond to all written (including electronic)
customer complaints.
Customer complaints are outside capture.
Principal approval of a retail communication before use (2210(b)(1)(A), (b)(4)(A)) The approval, its approver and its time are on the record, bound to the draft.
An appropriately qualified registered principal of the member must approve each retail
communication before the earlier of its use or filing with FINRA's Advertising Regulation
Department
the name of any registered principal who approved the communication and
the date that approval was given
A human_decision with actor and time bound to the drafting step; a decision
record whose output_flags set is_communication marks the output as
a communication, as the deployer asserts, and turns on the workpaper's
communication criterion. BitExact proves the approved text is the text sent
only where the send is a recorded tool call, and the correspondence or retail
classification is the firm's.
Rules apply to AI; oversight of autonomous agents (Regulatory Notice 24-09; 2026 Annual Regulatory Oversight Report) What each agent did, whether a person was in the session, and each approval, all on the record.
FINRA's rules continue to apply when member firms use Gen AI or similar technologies in
the course of their businesses
; the report names the risk of AI agents acting
autonomously without human validation and approval
and the practice of how to track
agent actions and decisions
.
Capture of the model and tool calls that route through the proxy or SDK, with their
prompts and responses; interaction_mode on the run's identity says whether a
person was in the session; a human_decision for each validation or approval; a
policy_check for each guardrail's verdict. Guidance, not a rule: a person in the
session is not an approval, and both are the deployer's assertions.
Communications created with AI, and chatbot sessions (Advertising Regulation FAQ B.4 and D.8; 2025 Annual Regulatory Oversight Report) Each chat turn through capture is kept, prompt and response, with its review.
Firms are responsible for their communications, regardless of whether they are
generated by a human or AI technology.
the firm must supervise the chatbot
communications in accordance with applicable FINRA rules
ensuring the appropriate
supervision of those communications, and retention of those chat sessions, in accordance
with SEC and FINRA rules.
Each chat turn that routes through capture is recorded, prompt and response;
is_communication marks the output as a communication; a bound
human_decision is the review; the retention floors above keep the run.
Guidance, not a rule: BitExact does not judge content against Rule 2210(d), the
classification is the firm's, and a chat turn outside capture is not retained.
SEC 17a-4: records retention
A workflow can declare the SEC 17a-4 audit-trail records regime. Under it, redaction waits until the run's verified bundle is archived, and a permanent purge is refused. It is the one records regime the product enforces today.
Communications received and sent, and their approvals (17a-4(b)(4)) What the agent drafted and received is captured; a sent message is evidenced only if the send was a recorded call.
The agent's drafted output and what it received are captured as the model entry or the
tool response that carried them; an approval is a chained human_decision.
BitExact captures the agent's calls, not the firm's communications archive: a sent
communication is evidenced only if the send went through a recorded tool call.
A time-stamped audit trail of modifications and deletions (17a-4(f)(2)(i)(A)(1)-(3)) Every redaction, hold, release and purge is itself on the record, with who and when.
The chain is append-only. Redaction, repair, legal hold and release are chained audit entries carrying who and when; a purge leaves a signed record naming who, when and the disposition; the custody chain records each export and access; anchors and the transparency log detect rollback. The identity on these acts is the operator's asserted name, not an authentication of it.
Permit re-creation of the original record (17a-4(f)(2)(i)(A)(4)) The archived bundle in your immutable storage is the original; under the 17a-4 regime, nothing destroys it first.
The archive keeps the verified bundle in the customer's immutable storage. Redaction and
purge --delete defeat re-creation by design; under a workflow that declares the
SEC 17a-4 audit-trail records regime, redaction waits until the run's verified bundle is
archived, and purge --delete is refused. A field the capture policy scrubbed
before capture was never written and can never be re-created.
Non-rewriteable, non-erasable (WORM) format (17a-4(f)(2)(i)(B)) Your object-lock storage is the WORM layer; BitExact's live store is not.
The customer's object-lock storage holds archived bundles and the WORM anchors (recorder-signed heads), and a legal hold blocks purge. BitExact's live store is not WORM, and an anchor holds a signed head, not the run's bytes.
Verify automatically the storing and retaining of records (17a-4(f)(2)(ii)) Stored records are checked automatically. That checks what was stored, not that everything was captured.
verify, health, the transparency-log audit, anchor checks, and
the archive's read-back verification before rows are dropped. These verify the integrity of
what was stored, never the completeness of capture.
Serialize the media and time-date the retention period (17a-4(f)(2)(iii)) Steps are in order and each run carries its retention date; serializing the media is your storage's.
Step order is serialized in the chain, and a committed retention_deadline is a
time-dated retention period. Serializing the storage media is the storage's.
Download and transfer a record and its audit trail (17a-4(f)(2)(iv)) Export a run as a file a person can read and a machine can check.
export writes the bundle as JSON, DSSE or JSONL; the evidence pack carries the
workpaper and a reading view of the runs that opens offline in any browser; the offline
verifier checks the bundles with no vendor trust. The reading view and workpaper are not
verification results, and transferring a copy to a regulator is the firm's act.
A backup recordkeeping system or other redundancy (17a-4(f)(2)(v)) Not provided.
The store's backup and redundancy are the customer's.
Undertakings by a designated executive officer or third party (17a-4(f)(3)(v)) Not provided.
A self-hosted product is not a designated third party, and the undertaking is the firm's to file.
Scrubbed, hash-only and withheld fields, against keeping communications whole (17a-4(b), (b)(4); 4511(a), (c)) A field removed before capture is not a copy of the message. Where a message must be kept whole, keep its fields.
A field the capture policy scrubbed, kept hash-only or withheld is not a copy of what the
agent sent or received: BitExact holds no copy of the original communication, and nobody
can re-create it from the evidence. A holder of the capture key can only test a candidate
value against a hash-only field. Where an agent's calls carry a communication the firm must
keep whole, such a field may not meet that books-and-records duty. The shipped default
scrubs card numbers, IBANs and credentials everywhere, so a broker-dealer may need a
narrower policy: a keep rule for the step kinds and paths that carry those
communications, ahead of the rules that scrub, or BITEXACT_CAPTURE_POLICY=off.
Every run records in its first entry which policy was in force (its digest), or
off, and each entry declares what was kept of each field.
Healthcare: HIPAA
What BitExact's evidence offers a covered entity running AI agents on patient data, and where it stops. These rows describe product behavior against the HIPAA Security and Privacy Rules (45 CFR Part 164); none of them says a deployment is HIPAA compliant. The product declares no healthcare records regime: retention and legal hold work as they do for any workflow, from the deadlines you set.
Audit controls: record and examine activity in systems that use ePHI (164.312(b)) Every model and tool call the agent makes through BitExact is a sealed, signed record you can examine later.
The hash-chained trajectory records each model call (prompt and response) and each call to a recorded tool, in order, with a terminal seal. It covers the agent's activity that routes through capture, not the activity of your clinical systems themselves, and a call made entirely out of band is not in the record.
Integrity: corroborate that records were not altered or destroyed (164.312(c)) Tamper-evident: any change to a recorded run is detected by an independent verifier.
The same hash chain, salted commitments and hybrid signatures as every other row: any in-place alteration breaks the chain at the exact step, and the open verifier names it. This proves the integrity of the agent's record, not of the data held in your EHR.
Minimum necessary: keep identifiers out of the record (164.502(b)) Identifiers can be removed before anything is written: SSNs (the opt-in detector matches a number with a word such as “SSN” or “social security” near it), email addresses, and your own patterns such as a medical record number.
The capture policy runs before anything is written, so a value it removes never reaches a
spool, the wire, a store, a log line or a backup. Built-in detectors find card numbers,
IBANs, credentials, US Social Security numbers and email addresses; a custom detector
matches a pattern of your own, such as MRN- followed by seven digits. Every
scrub is declared on the chain and counted in the verdict. The policy does not change what
the agent sends or receives.
Confirming a patient's runs without storing the identifier A patient identifier can be kept hash-only: the record never holds it, but a holder of the capture key can confirm a given identifier against it.
A hash-only field stores a commitment under a salt derived from the capture key. A holder of the capture key can test a candidate value, one at a time, and every test is recorded on the run's custody chain first.
De-identification (164.514) Not provided. Hash-only is pseudonymous, not de-identified.
A hash-only field is a keyed hash of its value. Under HIPAA a code derived from an identifier does not de-identify it (45 CFR 164.514(c)). Treat evidence holding hash-only fields as protected health information.
Names, addresses and free-text notes Not detected.
The detectors find only what they are built to find. Names, addresses and other free text
are not detected at all: clean them before BitExact sees them, and say so with
scrubbed-upstream, which is recorded as your claim, not checked.
Where the data lives Inside your network. BitExact the vendor receives none of it.
BitExact is self-hosted and makes no outbound connection of its own; the evidence never touches our infrastructure. Disclosure is scoped: an evidence pack can carry only the runs of one case, one agent or one period.
Where it stops, on every row
BitExact proves the integrity and reconstructability of what was captured, and surfaces capture gaps through the determinism linter and replay-divergence detection. It does not prove the capture is the complete set of calls an agent made: because BitExact wraps the model and tool interfaces rather than rewriting the agent, a call made entirely out of band never enters the record and leaves no gap to detect.
None of the mappings above claim that a deployer is thereby compliant, or that BitExact is certified or approved by any regulator. This page describes product capabilities, not legal advice; compliance determinations remain the customer's. Everything above runs inside the customer's network, and BitExact the vendor receives nothing. The full mapping, with a limit on every row and the DORA and US automated-decision regimes, is the regulatory mapping.