doc /audit/use-casesrev 2026.04.22verticals 4

four shapes of the same problem. a decision was made. prove what, when, and by whom.

the primitive is identical across regulated industries. the framing changes. examples below are drawn from production tenants (anonymized).

§01 financial services

ai underwriting & adverse action

a credit llm denies a loan. ecoa requires a defensible reason. sr 11-7 requires model risk lineage. the bank needs to reconstruct, two years later, exactly what the model saw and what it returned.

event mapping
actor agent · credit-llm@bank · model sha-256 + version
subject loan_application · la_01HZX9
decision deny · reason_codes=[dti_high, ltv_high]
evidence s3 uri + sha-256 of inputs, prompt, response
attests to sr 11-7 · ecoa · cfpb circular 2023-03 · eu ai act art. 14
outcome

adverse-action notice generation pulls reason codes from the signed record. mrm receives a verifiable lineage bundle. cfpb exam pulls a proof in 4 minutes.

§02 agentic systems

autonomous agent actions

an agent with tools (read jira, write to crm, send email, refund a customer) takes thousands of actions per day. when one goes wrong, you need to know — was it the model, the prompt, the tool, the human override?

event mapping
actor agent · ops-copilot@acme · run_id
subject tool_call · refund · stripe:re_3OqK...
decision execute · amount=124.00 · reason="duplicate charge"
evidence prompt sha-256 · tool_def sha-256 · approval (if any)
attests to soc 2 cc7.2 · iso 42001 · internal change control
outcome

incident review reconstructs the exact agent state at decision time. attribution is unambiguous: model output, tool boundary, human override — each is its own signed record.

§03 healthcare

clinical decision support

a clinical reasoning model surfaces a differential. a clinician accepts, modifies, or rejects. hipaa requires access logs; the joint commission requires decision lineage; malpractice defense requires both, signed.

event mapping
actor human · clinician_id · plus model attribution
subject patient_encounter · enc_01HZ... (de-identified ref)
decision accept_with_modification · differential ranked
evidence inputs digest · model output digest · ehr write_id
attests to hipaa §164.312(b) · joint commission · 21st century cures act
outcome

phi never leaves the customer environment — only sha-256 digests are signed. legal hold and discovery are answered with proof bundles, not screenshots.

§04 federal & regulated

federal ai governance

omb m-25-22 requires agencies to inventory and govern ai use. eo 14365 raises the bar on safety-impacting and rights-impacting systems. the fy2026 ndaa requires verifiable audit for ai used in defense decisioning.

event mapping
actor system · ai_inventory_id · piv card or workload identity
subject use_case_id · safety/rights impact tier
decision authorize_to_operate · or · withdraw_authorization
evidence gov-controlled storage uri + sha-256
attests to omb m-25-22 · eo 14365 · fy2026 ndaa · nist ai rmf 1.0
outcome

ato packages include a verifiable ledger from day one. ig audits pull cryptographic proofs instead of screenshots. deployment lives entirely in govcloud.

§06 data centers

per-tenant cryptographic evidence for regulated ai workloads

every regulated tenant running ai inside your facility is one occ examination or federal audit away from needing a signed record of what their ai decided. syen comply deploys inside the facility using each tenant's own kms key. the evidence never leaves the perimeter. each tenant's chain is cryptographically separated from every other tenant's chain. aligned to nist critical infrastructure ai rmf, dod il2/il4/il5, and omb m-25-22. enterprise tier supports air-gapped kubernetes deployment for classified environments.

event mapping
actor tenant_id · workload_id · per-tenant kms key
subject ai_decision_event · tenant-scoped chain
decision model_output · policy_state · human_review
evidence in-facility storage uri + sha-256 · no egress
attests to nist critical infra ai rmf · dod il2/il4/il5 · omb m-25-22
outcome

each tenant exports their own signed chain on demand. cross-tenant isolation is cryptographic, not policy-based. air-gapped kubernetes deployment supports classified environments without external network dependencies.

§07 audit & compliance teams

eliminate the examination response labor event

when regulators arrive, compliance teams typically spend weeks reconstructing evidence chains across five systems. okta has the login. snowflake has the data. datadog has the trace. none of them have a single record binding all five together. syen comply eliminates that labor event. the signed proof package already exists. export it. hand it over. the model stays cold. the engineers stay on roadmap.

event mapping
actor composite · identity (okta) + workload (datadog) + data (snowflake)
subject decision_event · single canonical record
decision pre-bound · five-system context in one signed payload
evidence unified proof bundle · already exists at decision time
attests to soc 2 cc7.2 · iso 42001 · sr 11-7 · examiner readiness
outcome

examination response shifts from a multi-week labor event to a file export. no log reconstruction. no engineer time. the proof package was created when the decision was made, not when the examiner asked.

§05 insurance

cyber insurance

cyber insurers are pulling out of ai workload coverage because they cannot verify ai outputs. syen comply produces the independently verifiable record of what the ai did, what policy governed it, who reviewed it, and that the record has not been altered. that record is what restarts coverage.

event mapping
actor system · ai_workload_id · model sha-256 + version
subject decision_event · policy_id · coverage_scope
decision ai_output · human_review · policy_state
evidence inputs digest · output digest · review attestation
attests to cyber insurance requirements · ai workload verification
outcome

insurers receive a cryptographically signed, tamper-evident record of every ai decision. coverage conversations shift from 'we cannot verify' to 'here is the proof package.'

§02 what we are not

we don't do dashboards. we don't do policy.

integrators ask, sometimes, for a rules engine. or a risk score. or a real-time block. that's a different product, and it's in your stack already. we record what your stack decides — so when a regulator asks, you have an answer that doesn't depend on us being honest.

no

not a policy engine

opa, cedar, casbin, your own — keep using them. we sign the decision they produce.

no

not a guardrail

nemo guardrails, llamafirewall, your own filters — keep using them. we record what got through and what didn't.

no

not an observability tool

traces, metrics, logs — datadog, honeycomb, sentry. we're forensic, not telemetric.