For the Legal and Compliance
Sovereign intelligence for the Legal and Compliance
Make AI activity traceable, governed and evidential.
Legal and compliance teams are asked to approve AI they did not build, under rules that are still being applied. Your tools are contracts, records and evidence, so the questions are practical: where are the logs, who can access them, how long are they kept and what can you show a regulator. This page gives you a checklist for any vendor.
What a Legal and Compliance worries about
Records you do not control
If the only copy of the audit trail sits in a vendor dashboard, you depend on their retention and goodwill. The EU AI Act expects deployers of high-risk systems to keep logs under their control for at least six months; check the Official Journal text for the exact duty.
Shifting regulatory dates
The Digital Omnibus on AI moved stand-alone high-risk obligations to 2 December 2027, while general-purpose model duties and Article 50 transparency kept earlier dates. Plans must follow the final text, not headlines. See the Gibson Dunn summary (opens in a new tab).
Cross-border access and transfers
Data location is not the whole story. Provider nationality and legal exposure, including laws such as the US CLOUD Act, affect who can compel access. See data sovereignty.
Third-party and sub-processor chains
An AI service may rely on model providers, hosting and support vendors. Each is a link in the chain you must be able to describe, and for financial entities DORA requires a register of ICT third-party arrangements.
Claims you cannot verify
Marketing statements about compliance and certification are not evidence. You need the underlying controls, reports and contract language.
What a Sovereign Intelligence Platform gives you
Traceability end to end
The chain from data to model to agent to decision to action to outcome is designed to be recorded, so activity can be explained after the fact. See governance.
Evidence as a product of operation
Records of identity, data accessed, model used, policy applied, approval and outcome are produced as the system runs, which supports review without a separate reporting project.
Compliance-by-design wording you can rely on
Swfte provides the technical controls, governance mechanisms and evidence required to deploy AI within an organisation's applicable regulatory, security and policy requirements. The exact posture depends on the customer's use case, jurisdiction, deployment and configuration.
Honest status
The trust centre separates what is true today, what is in progress and what is not claimed, with the DPA and sub-processors published as drafts for review.
Governance sovereignty
Policies, permissions, oversight, audit and evidence stay with the organisation. See governance sovereignty.
Capabilities are described as what the platform is designed to let you do. For what is true today and what is not claimed, see the trust centre.
Questions to ask any vendor
Use this as a checklist in any evaluation, ours included. Each question comes with what a good answer looks like.
01Where are AI activity logs stored, who can access them, and can we hold our own copy?
A good answer: A stated location, role-based access, vendor access logged and a streaming or scheduled export into our own storage.
02What retention periods apply, and can we configure them to meet our obligations?
A good answer: Configurable retention by log type with deletion on request, and clarity on the minimum a deployer may need, such as the AI Act six-month rule where it applies.
03Do you provide a Data Processing Agreement, and what is its status?
A good answer: A signable DPA with scope, security measures, sub-processor terms and audit rights. If it is a draft pending review, the vendor says so.
04Who are your sub-processors, where are they, and how are we notified of changes?
A good answer: A current public list with locations and purposes, and advance notice with a right to object.
05Which legal entities and jurisdictions can be compelled to disclose our data?
A good answer: A written answer naming the entities, parent companies and applicable laws, including non-EU reach, with the mitigations available such as customer-managed keys where offered.
06How do you support human oversight and record it?
A good answer: Approval and escalation steps with named approvers, recorded decisions and the ability to stop a system. This supports the oversight expectations of Article 14 for high-risk uses.
07Can you give a technical description of the system, its purpose and its limits suitable for our records?
A good answer: Documentation covering intended use, model versions, data handling and known limitations, updated when the system changes.
08How do you help us meet transparency obligations to people who interact with AI?
A good answer: Configurable disclosure and labelling, consistent with Article 50 timing, and clarity on what applies to which role.
09What audit rights do we have, and what evidence can you provide on request?
A good answer: Contractual audit and information rights, with a security questionnaire, architecture overview and reports available on request.
10Which certifications and attestations do you hold, and which are only in progress?
A good answer: A written list that separates held, in progress and not held, with dates. Treat vague wording as a red flag.
11How do your terms handle liability, incidents and notification for AI-caused harm?
A good answer: Defined notification windows, incident cooperation and liability terms that reflect the risk of the use case, reviewed by counsel.
Recommended reading
- Governance sovereignty
- Supply-chain sovereignty
- Guide: wire the trust fabric
- EU AI Act overview
- Trust centre
Not sure where to start? Take the readiness assessment or read the build guide.
Frequently asked questions
Does using Swfte make our AI compliant?
No platform can do that alone. Swfte provides technical controls, governance mechanisms and evidence. Your posture depends on your use case, jurisdiction, deployment and configuration.
When do the EU AI Act high-risk obligations apply?
Under the Digital Omnibus on AI, stand-alone Annex III systems are deferred to 2 December 2027 and AI in regulated products to 2 August 2028. Confirm against the Official Journal and your own legal advice.
What evidence should an AI system produce?
Identity, data accessed, model used, output, tools called, policy applied, decision, approval, action and outcome, retained under your rules.
Where can I read the DPA?
A draft template is on the DPA page, pending legal review. The trust centre records its status.
Build with control: for the Legal and Compliance
Start with one entry point. Add intelligence, agents, workflows and infrastructure as you prove value. Or read the step-by-step build guide and take the readiness assessment.