Purpose
ETHRAEON compliance architecture transforms regulatory requirements from policy documents into technical guarantees. GDPR data protection, EU AI Act transparency obligations, and institutional governance standards are not external constraints—they are system properties. Compliance is provable through cryptographic evidence, not asserted through documentation. Regulators verify implementation, not read assurances.
Who This Is For
Data Protection Officers: GDPR compliance leaders requiring demonstrable proof of data subject rights, consent management, and cross-border transfer controls.
Regulatory Affairs Teams: Leaders interfacing with EU AI Act enforcement, national data protection authorities, and sector-specific regulators (financial, healthcare, public sector).
Legal & Risk Executives: General counsel and chief risk officers accountable for institutional AI governance and regulatory exposure management.
What Problem This Solves
Organizations deploy AI systems and then attempt to demonstrate compliance retroactively. Privacy impact assessments describe intent, not implementation. Audit logs are generated but not cryptographically sealed. When regulators investigate, companies provide documentation that cannot be independently verified.
ETHRAEON solves this through compliance-by-construction. GDPR requirements become architectural constraints. EU AI Act transparency obligations generate automatic evidence. Data residency rules enforce geographic boundaries technically, not procedurally. Regulators verify system implementation, not organizational claims.
Why ETHRAEON Is Different
Conventional AI platforms treat compliance as a legal exercise. Privacy teams write policies. Engineers build systems. Auditors hope the two align. Compliance evidence consists of spreadsheets, not cryptographic proofs.
ETHRAEON makes compliance technical. Data subject rights trigger constitutional rules. Consent requirements become access control policies. Cross-border restrictions enforce geographic routing. Audit obligations generate immutable evidence chains. Compliance is not documented—it is executed and provable.
Regulatory Frameworks
- Article 15 (Right of Access): Data export requests trigger constitutional workflows. User data extracted from canonical sources, sealed with SHA256, delivered within 72 hours with cryptographic receipt.
- Article 17 (Right to Erasure): Deletion requests validated against legal retention requirements via constitutional rules. Erasure logged in immutable audit trail. Evidence of deletion preserved in Canon.
- Article 25 (Data Protection by Design): Privacy embedded in architecture. Access controls enforce need-to-know. Encryption mandatory. Evidence-first design prevents unauthorized processing.
- Article 30 (Records of Processing): All processing activities logged in append-only Canon. Complete audit trails with cryptographic integrity. Regulatory review requires Canon access, not documentation requests.
- Article 35 (Impact Assessments): High-risk AI operations require AC-1 constitutional approval. Risk assessment results sealed in Canon. DPIA evidence verifiable by data protection authorities.
- Article 44-49 (Cross-Border Transfers): Geographic routing enforced via Meridian system. Data residency rules prevent unauthorized transfers. Compliance provable through infrastructure topology, not contracts.
- Article 13 (Transparency): All AI operations logged with complete reasoning chains. Decision processes explained via constitutional rule evaluation. Evidence trails show exact logic applied.
- Article 14 (Human Oversight): Non-autonomous architecture ensures human authority anchoring. AC-1 approval required for constitutional rules. Systems cannot operate outside human-authorized boundaries.
- Article 15 (Accuracy & Robustness): Deterministic execution ensures identical inputs produce identical outputs. No probabilistic drift. Robustness tested via constitutional rule validation before deployment.
- Article 16 (Cybersecurity): Zero-trust architecture. JWT RS256 authentication across 29 protected domains. Encryption mandatory. Access logs immutable. Security violations trigger constitutional alerts.
- Article 17 (Quality Management): Constitutional rule versioning with SHA256 verification. Deployment receipts sealed in Canon. Change management requires AC-1 approval. Quality evidence cryptographically provable.
- Article 20 (Record Keeping): Automatic logging in append-only Canon. Complete decision history with timestamps, authority signatures, and cryptographic seals. Records preserved for regulatory retention periods.
- Board Reporting: Executive summaries generated from canonical receipts. AI operational metrics, constitutional compliance rates, and incident reports backed by cryptographic evidence.
- Internal Audit: Complete audit trails accessible via Canon. Independent verification possible without organizational mediation. Hash verification proves evidence integrity.
- Risk Management: AI risk assessment results sealed in Canon. Constitutional violations flagged automatically. Risk exposure quantified via evidence-based metrics, not estimates.
- Policy Enforcement: Organizational policies translated into constitutional rules. Enforcement mechanical, not procedural. Compliance violations generate immutable evidence, not incident reports.
- Vendor Accountability: Third-party AI providers subject to same constitutional constraints. Evidence chains extend beyond organizational boundaries. Vendor compliance provable, not asserted.
- Incident Response: AI failures generate complete forensic trails. Root cause analysis traces decisions through constitutional evaluation. Evidence preserved for legal proceedings or regulatory investigation.
Audit-Ready Evidence
When regulators or auditors require compliance demonstration, ETHRAEON provides:
Canonical Receipts: Every compliance-relevant action documented in append-only Canon. SHA256-sealed. IPFS-anchored. Independently verifiable.
Constitutional Rule Sets: AC-1 authorized governance protocols with version tracking. Rule changes logged. Historical rule sets preserved for retroactive compliance verification.
Decision Audit Trails: Complete paths from input through constitutional evaluation to output. Every rule application logged. Every authority signature preserved.
Evidence Chains: Claim-to-source-to-verification paths for all compliance assertions. No trust required—verify cryptographically.
System Topology: Infrastructure documentation showing data residency, access controls, encryption, and geographic routing. Compliance provable through architecture, not documentation.