Industries
Same wall. Different questions.
The problem is the same everywhere: nobody can prove where an AI answer came from. What changes is who asks, and about which documents.
Where to start
Pick the one you answer to.
Start with Enterprise if your regulator is not named here. The argument is the same; the vocabulary changes.
ISO 27001 · SOC 2
Enterprise
One knowledge layer every team uses.
Explore →SEC Rule 17a-4 · FINRA supervision obligations
Financial services
AI answers a supervisor can check.
Explore →21 CFR Part 11 · The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
Life sciences
AI answers your quality unit can defend.
Explore →What they share
One guarantee across all three.
Underneath all three is one mechanism. Every entry carries a named approver, a date and a source. Not metadata added afterwards: it is the condition of being live at all. An entry without an approver does not answer anyone, person or machine.
Use disclosure D-214 rev 6. It supersedes rev 5 for all retail communications and carries the current market-risk language. SOP-4471 v3
That is what makes an AI answer provable. When review asks who approved what the assistant said, the answer is a record rather than a reconstruction: this entry, this approver, this date, this document, this version.
What this does not do
Cognatum does not make your organization compliant with any regulation, and no software can. What it gives you is evidence toward your own obligations: the approval record, the version history, and the source behind every answer your AI gives.
How that machinery is designed to align with ISO 30401, and what it supplies toward EU AI Act and NIST AI RMF reviews, is on the standards page.
Knowledge governed. Intelligence everywhere.
See it on your own content, in your own environment.