Epydios
Menu

Standards

Designed to support standards-aligned controls and audit-ready evidence artifacts


What “standards-aligned” means here

We use “standards-aligned” to mean a control mapping approach that links control objectives to explicit runtime touchpoints and reviewable evidence categories without implying explicit certification, compliance or audit outcomes.


Why standards alignment is difficult for tool-using AI

As orchestration, delegation and tool use expand, governance often becomes narrative-only or retrospective. Standards alignment becomes harder when authority is implicit, transitions are uncontrolled and enforcement is merely advisory at the moment actions become effects.


Control mapping approach

Figure 2: Governance checkpoints in the runtime loop
Figure 2: Governance checkpoints in the runtime loop

A boundary-first mapping approach:

The architecture emphasizes explicit identity and authority context at decision time and enforcement anchored at the action boundary.


Evidence expectations

Evidence artifacts are designed to support review and reconstruction. Examples of what an evidence chain may need to support include:

Evidence artifacts are conceptually distinct from logs and are intended to align with audit and incident response needs when deployed.


Standards Certification

This page describes architectural support for standards alignment and evidence production. It is not a compliance claim because compliance depends on deployment scope, implementation details, operational processes and audit outcomes.

The systems are designed to rigorously support robust standard-aligned deployment.


Diligence materials

For diligence discussions, a standards alignment mapping pack can be made available, including a control-ID crosswalk approach and a boundary-class evidence expectations catalog. Availability and scope are context-dependent.

For further discussion contact us.