ClearState produces what several recent regulatory frameworks now require: a record made at the moment of decision, naming the authority, the rule, and the rulebook version. This page maps ClearState to specific frameworks. It is reference material, not a sales argument.
Compliance, legal, and risk teams use this page when they need to explain internally why this kind of authorization layer matters now.
Across these frameworks, the requirement is the same: when a decision is questioned later, the organization must be able to show who decided, on what basis, under which rules, at what moment. The frameworks differ in scope and sector. The evidentiary requirement is consistent.
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 demonstrate, per trade, that the decision was authorized against the fund's mandate, investor restrictions, and applicable rules. ClearState is one way of producing 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 is one way of producing that record at the moment of the decision — not reconstructed from notes.
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 justified it.
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 reproducible and on record — every decision the system authorizes can be retrieved and replayed.
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.
US state insurance regulators (NAIC) and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) increasingly call for AI governance with named accountability for underwriting decisions. ClearState produces the underwriting record with the named underwriter, the rulebook version, and the binding rule.
Source material referenced across the ClearState category positioning — customs and sanctions authorities, sector regulators, and institutional research on AI governance maturity.
Most compliance, legal, and risk teams already know these frameworks. The question they get from operations and the business is: what, concretely, do we do about it?
ClearState is a concrete answer. The pilot produces a working rulebook against your historical decisions. From there, the conversation with regulators and auditors changes — from "we have a policy" to "we have a record."