The regulators we
map evidence against.

One trace in. One verifiable package out.

A Warrant record is the artefact a regulator reads. It cites, by number, the specific articles that apply to the trace it was built from, binds each agent decision to the obligation it answers to, and is independently verifiable without contacting Warrant. Coverage follows the trace: this page is the index of what we map and where each obligation lives, not a list of clauses every record carries. Two entries answer the questions counsel ask before any regime name comes up: what records must an AI agent keep, and what counts as audit-ready evidence.

Mapping is article-level. We cite specific obligations and the Warrant evidence fields that satisfy them. We do not claim certifications we do not hold. Coverage we have not shipped is not listed.

Regulation and guidance, cited to clause.

Status chip per row. live means production-shipped article-level mapping. partial means some obligations satisfied, others surfaced as Gaps. roadmap means we have not shipped it. pending means the regime is still drafting. Coverage status is separate from legal force: a row carrying not binding is supervisory guidance, a committee report or a voluntary standard, mapped and labelled, never cited as binding.

The two Article 12 questions that arrive with the EU rows have their own entries: how long must Article 12 logs be kept, and is there a standard for Article 12 logging.

Twenty regimes mapped. Six published.

The evidence corpus behind the pipeline maps 20 regimes. Eight of those are carried by the published deep-dive pages above — Article 13 sits on the EU AI Act page and the RBI FREE-AI report on the India page. The twelve remaining regimes are indexed here. Each entry names the instrument, carries its status as recorded in the corpus, and points at the closest published surface. A draft, a superseded letter, or a non-binding source is mapped and labelled — it is never cited as binding.

Warrant's own submissions to regulators are on the record too: Regulatory filings register.

Per-article depth, not regime-level.

Horizontal infrastructure layers (runtime evidence buses, generic GRC platforms) cover regimes by name. Warrant cites specific articles, sub-clauses, and the Warrant evidence field that satisfies each one. That is the difference between an answer and a citation.

The regulator never has to call us.

Anyone, including the regulator, can confirm an artefact is genuine independently, without contacting Warrant. Open /verify, paste a package id, and the record checks out on its own. That is the point.

MDR / IVDR (EU healthcare) is on the v0.5 roadmap, 2026 Q3. DORA (EU operational resilience for finance, mandatory 2025-01-17) is downstream of SR 26-2 mapping and shares roughly 70 percent of the evidence shape. Coverage we have not shipped is not listed.

Which framework applies to your AI system.

A counsel reviewing an AI deployment in 2026 walks the same branches. The questions follow Annex III, the Consumer Duty, the model-risk trigger, the SEBI pre-approval gate, and the DPDP perimeter. Each leaf below names the regime that attaches and the deep-dive page that carries the per-clause map. Where nothing attaches, the leaf says so.

Three evidence packages. Three jurisdictions.

Each sample is a real evidence package produced by Warrant against a hand-crafted trace. Each record is mapped to a specific obligation and is independently verifiable without contacting Warrant. Open offline and confirm it checks out on its own. No one ever has to call us.

Index-level questions, answered plainly.

How many regulatory regimes does Warrant map? As of 2026-08-06 the evidence corpus maps 20 regimes. Five binding instruments are published as per-clause deep-dive pages — the EU AI Act (Articles 12 and 13 on one page), the FCA Consumer Duty, NYDFS Part 500, and India's SEBI algorithmic-trading framework and DPDP Act 2023 (together with the RBI FREE-AI report on one page). SR 26-2 has a deep-dive page of its own and is mapped and labelled non-binding: it is an interagency supervisory letter rather than an enforceable rule, and as of the letter of 17 April 2026 its footnote 3 places generative and agentic AI outside its scope. The remainder are mapped in the corpus and indexed in section 03 above with instrument and status.

Does a regime without a published page mean Warrant does not cover it? No. A regime listed as mapped in the corpus has per-clause obligation data the pipeline can cite; a published page is the public deep dive on top of it. Every corpus entry carries its status — a draft consultation, a superseded letter, or a non-binding source is held in the corpus and labelled, and is never cited as binding.

Where are Warrant's own submissions to regulators recorded? In the regulatory filings register, which lists each submission Warrant has made to a regulator on the public record.

Which regulators does Warrant map evidence against?

Each deep-dive page carries the verbatim statute text, the Warrant evidence field per obligation, the primary-source URL, and a sample evidence package you can confirm offline. The record returns the same answer to you, to your regulator, and to a stranger on the internet — independently verifiable without contacting Warrant.