When a decision is questioned — by an auditor, a regulator or in a dispute — a company must show who decided, on what rules, and when. RuleState shows where each rule came from and which version was frozen. ClearState shows which rulebook version and which facts applied to a real decision.
This page maps that to specific frameworks. It is reference material, not a sales argument.
The common requirement across these frameworks is evidentiary: when a decision is questioned — by a regulator, auditor, or in litigation — the organization must show who decided, on what basis, under which rules, at which moment.
ClearState produces that evidence at the moment of the operational decision.
Across these frameworks, the requirement is consistent: when a decision is questioned later, the organization must show who decided, on what basis, under which rules, at what moment. The frameworks differ in scope and sector. The evidentiary requirement does not.
For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act requires that a natural person can effectively oversee the system, intervene in its operation, and understand its output. ClearState is the layer where that oversight is exercised: a named human authority is bound to each decision, with the rule and rulebook version on record.
Alternative Investment Fund Managers must be able to show that the decision was authorized against the fund's mandate, investor restrictions, and applicable rules. ClearState produces that evidence at the moment of trade authorization, naming the conducting officer and the rulebook version active then.
Investment firms must document suitability assessments and client categorization decisions in a way that is reviewable years later. ClearState produces that record at the moment of the decision — not reconstructed from notes or system exports after the fact.
Sanctions enforcement actions and fines have reached unprecedented levels over the past three years. When a sanctions screening is overridden, the override must be defensible. ClearState produces the override record with the named authority and the rule that authorized or blocked the decision.
Sources: OFAC enforcement actions · EU sanctions framework
The Digital Operational Resilience Act requires financial entities to demonstrate ICT risk controls and oversight on third-party providers performing critical decision functions. ClearState's authorization layer is itself on record — every decision the system authorizes can be retrieved and independently verified.
Source: DORA — Regulation (EU) 2022/2554
Where decisions affecting individuals are made by automated means, the data subject has the right to human intervention and to contest the decision. ClearState is structured around named human authority — automation supports the authority, but the authority decides. The record proves it.
US state insurance regulators (NAIC) and EIOPA increasingly require AI governance with named accountability for underwriting decisions. ClearState produces the underwriting record with the named underwriter, the rulebook version, and the rule that authorized or blocked the decision.
Sources: NAIC AI guidance · EIOPA AI governance principles
The 2025–2026 reports from Deloitte, KPMG, EY, and McKinsey identify the same pattern: organizations have governance policy, but lack per-decision authorization at the moment of execution. The frameworks above describe what is required. The reports below describe what is missing.
Most compliance, legal, and risk teams already know these frameworks. The question they get from operations is: what, concretely, do we do about it?
ClearState is a concrete answer. ClearState checks real operational decisions against the rulebook a person confirmed and froze.
ClearState checks the facts of a real transaction against the frozen rulebook before the action goes ahead. It keeps a record of which rules and which facts applied.
The rulebook version is fixed at decision time, and every answer names who had the authority.