The paper discusses how financial institutions are increasingly using AI agents in areas such as credit, fraud, and compliance, yet current governance focuses only on individual components. It introduces ARIA, a finance‑specific reference architecture that adds six capabilities—policy specification, population‑level monitoring, bounded authority, runtime containment, adaptive policy change, and preserved human oversight—to address the gap of constitutional non‑compositionality. Two simulations demonstrate how local controls can miss collective bias and how observed‑versus‑expected monitoring can provide earlier warnings of drift.
Financial institutions are beginning to deploy agentic workflows in credit, fraud, collections, compliance, and operational control. Governance remains largely component-centric: each model or agent i...
The paper introduces a compliance-first AI architecture for regulated finance, treating regulation as an orientation layer rather than a rigid rule set. It uses a regulatory intent matrix and a governed policy compiler to translate regulatory requirements into concrete prohibitions, obligations, and runtime budgets, while maintaining proportional committee activation and supervisory oversight. Evidence and decisions are recorded on a permissioned DAG with deterministic timestamps, enabling replay, provenance checks, and clear attribution of failures, and clause-level legal indexing ensures portability across the DACH region and the EU.
arXiv:2608. 11344v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Financial institutions are delegating consequential decisions to agentic AI systems that decompose goals, coordinate models and tools, and act with little oversight.
arXiv:2608. 19278v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The most capable general-purpose AI (GPAI) models are mostly built in two jurisdictions, the United States and China, but the risks they carry land globally.
The paper introduces Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework that translates the EU AI Act’s technical requirements into 43 machine‑checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules. GaC runs within a CI/CD pipeline, producing Article‑indexed audit evidence and providing actual Rego policy code. The authors validate GaC on two enterprise deployments, showing it reproduces manual audit findings—including three penalty‑triggering violations—while reducing audit labor by about 75%.
arXiv:2608. 14562v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI governance is shifting from voluntary ethics to enforceable, risk-based regulation, yet cross-jurisdictional divergence creates compliance uncertainty for operators of high-stakes AI.
The paper "Governing at Machine Speed: An Adaptive Intelligence Architecture for Real-Time AI Policy Enforcement" highlights a gap in enterprise AI governance, where 78% of organizations lack auditable evidence of policy enforcement. It introduces AGIL, a five-layer adaptive governance architecture that uses machine learning for real-time detection, risk classification, sub-100ms policy enforcement, continuous attestation, and policy evolution. The authors argue that the failure is organizational and architectural, not technical, and call for future empirical validation of AGIL.
arXiv:2607. 04103v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The release of SR 26-2 marks a significant modernization of U.
arXiv:2609.37457v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprise artificial-intelligence agents increasingly call tools, modify infrastructure, and process protected data, creating a need to separate actio...
arXiv:2607. 21345v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Regulating activities where regulatees use autonomous and agentic AI is challenging.
The paper argues that AI should be evaluated not only by principles but by concrete protocols that translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. It introduces a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation, and distinguishes evidence‑bounded deployment from measurement‑bounded governance. The authors propose the RISE AI architecture to make bounded, evidence‑based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment, emphasizing the need for engineering, institutional repair, and ongoing moral judgment.
Compute governance today is a governance of training: the thresholds, reporting requirements, and frontier-AI regimes now in force attach to training compute and treat the trained model as the regulat...