Evidence & ComplianceBoard, auditor, or regulator: 60 seconds, not six weeks.
Senior management, the quarterly board pack, internal audit, or a regulator — whoever asks, the evidence is already there. Every governance event is mapped automatically to clause-level requirements across 12 regulatory frameworks, simultaneously, and backed by a SHA-256 hash-chained audit trail that proves each record was created at the moment of the event, not reconstructed after someone asked for it.
Book An AI Exposure Assessment
By the time you have collated the evidence, it is already out of date.
More than 60% of organisations operate without an adequate AI governance framework (Gartner, 2025). For enterprises in Singapore, that is a live gap against obligations already in force. Under the EU AI Act, penalties for high-risk violations reach EUR 35 million or 7% of global turnover.
Three Ways Evidence Fails
- Assembled, not captured — reconstructed from spreadsheets, email and memory; it cannot prove when it was created
- Gathered repeatedly — the control tested for ISO 42001 is tested again for AI Verify, and again for MAS FEAT
- Not defensible — a record that can be edited after the fact proves nothing
A spreadsheet is a snapshot. It cannot evidence your AI.
Traditional compliance programmes capture qualitative belief at a single moment, with no baseline to measure against. They do not observe what AI is actually running, what data it reaches, what the dynamic risk is, what the current running costs are or what decisions it made. By the time an annual review completes, the estate it describes has completely changed.
What an internal Auditor or Regulator Will Ask For
- Every AI system with a named owner
- The decision-level explanation, dated
- Proof the record was not assembled after the request
Why Veranthios Is Different
Does Veranthios replace our existing GRC platform?
No — but it answers the question a GRC platform cannot. Ask your GRC system how often the risk score on a given AI model is updated, and the honest answer is: when someone last filled in the form. Veranthios scores every AI system continuously, across seven dimensions, reweighting as models drift, data shifts and regulations evolve. Risk velocity surfaces rapidly deteriorating models ahead of stable ones — a quarterly review sees a point, never a trajectory. Smart intake triage tiers every system (full / standard / light / exempt) so governance effort lands where actual risk is. And it never stops: CVE-2025-59145 turned GitHub Copilot Enterprise — a sanctioned, IT-approved tool — into an exfiltration channel. Sanctioning a tool is not the same as governing it.
What happens when a framework changes — or new legislation is coming?
Veranthios Sentinel continuously scans legislative and regulatory sources across Asia Pacific for changes to AI regulation and policy, including changes still upcoming. You find out before the clause lands, not after your auditor does.
How do we evidence twelve frameworks without twelve compliance teams?
You do not evidence them separately. A governance event evidenced for IMDA AI Verify is credited simultaneously to the equivalent ISO/IEC 42001 clause and the corresponding MAS FEAT (Veritas) pillar — for a multi-jurisdiction enterprise, the difference between four audit preparations and one.
Twelve frameworks. One governance event.
Veranthios cross-maps every framework to every other. A governance event evidenced for IMDA AI Verify is simultaneously credited to the equivalent ISO/IEC 42001 clause and the relevant MAS FEAT principle — eliminating the duplicated evidence-gathering that consumes weeks of compliance resource ahead of every audit cycle.
-
Clause-Level Mapping
Every governance event mapped automatically to clause-level requirements across 12 regulatory frameworks, simultaneously.
-
Cross-Framework Crediting
Evidence collected once is credited everywhere it applies — no duplicate assessment across overlapping frameworks.
Twelve frameworks. One governance event.
Proof the evidence was there before the question was asked. SHA-256 hash-chained; altering any record breaks the chain. Tamper-evident by construction · Generated at event time.
-
Clause-Level Mapping
Every governance event mapped automatically to clause-level requirements across 12 regulatory frameworks, simultaneously.
-
Cross-Framework Crediting
Evidence collected once is credited everywhere it applies — no duplicate assessment across overlapping frameworks.
Twelve frameworks. One governance event.
The board pack that used to take six weeks. Jurisdiction-specific, clause-level, readable by directors. Board-Ready Evidence Packs · Jurisdiction-Specific Reporting.
-
Clause-Level Mapping
Every governance event mapped automatically to clause-level requirements across 12 regulatory frameworks, simultaneously.
-
Cross-Framework Crediting
Evidence collected once is credited everywhere it applies — no duplicate assessment across overlapping frameworks.
Mapped to the framework, principle by principle
IMDA AI Verify (v2.0)
IMDA MGF for Agentic AI
MAS FEAT (Veritas Methodology)
ASEAN Guide on AI Governance
Bank Indonesia AI Governance
OJK AI Governance (Financial)
Bank Negara Malaysia (RMiT)
Bank of Thailand + AI Ethics
State Bank of Vietnam
Japan METI + FSA
ISO/IEC 42001
EU Artificial Intelligence Act
EXPLAINABILITY
Attention heatmaps and decision-trace timelines for LLMs and multi-agent systems; what-if sliders for traditional ML. Every explanation cryptographically logged at the moment of the decision.
BIAS & FAIRNESS
Tested against 12+ recognised fairness measures; models breaching a threshold are flagged for governance review, with the finding and resolution recorded in the audit trail.