Standards & Compliance

Standards & Compliance Mapping

Every AI governance instrument names an obligation — record-keeping, robustness, post-market monitoring, human oversight — but none names a metric. PSA is the behavioral evidence layer: the deterministic, timestamped, externally-verifiable measurement that discharges the measurable half of those obligations. This page maps PSA, honestly, onto twelve frameworks in force in 2026.

12
frameworks mapped
6
evidence primitives
5
strong-coverage frameworks
5
languages

Thesis

Read the AI governance instruments of 2026 side by side and the same shape appears every time. Each tells an organization what it must achieve — keep records, be robust to attack, monitor the system after deployment, keep a human in the loop, manage risk. Not one tells you how to measure whether you did it. They are, by design, technology-agnostic: they name the obligation and leave the metric to you.

That gap is the opportunity. PSA is the behavioral evidence layer — the instrument that turns "we monitor for drift" into a deterministic, timestamped number with a defined formula, and "we log relevant events" into a hash-chained record you can verify without trusting us. PSA does not replace a management system or a governance function. It supplies the proof under the promise.

The Six Evidence Primitives

Across all twelve frameworks, PSA's contribution reduces to six evidence primitives. Each crosswalk row maps a requirement to one or more of these.

ID Primitive PSA signals
E1Deterministic behavioral event logPosture codes (I/P/M/H/G) + alert ladder
E2Tamper-evident log integrity, externally verifiableSIGTRACK — hash-chained, drand-anchored, /verify-chain
E3Adversarial / robustness measurementC0 input intent (I0–I9), C1 adversarial stress, CPI
E4Human–AI interaction risk (incl. psychological harm)DRM (IRS, RAS, RAG), HRI
E5Continuous monitoring & forecastingBHS, POI, DPI, PE, CPF3 (EWMA+HMM)
E6Behavioral transparency / explainabilityNamed posture codes + named, auditable alert reasons

Framework → PSA Crosswalk

Requirement-by-requirement mapping. Filter by framework or by coverage level. Coverage is marked honestly — green only where PSA produces exactly the evidence asked for.

DIRECT PSA produces the evidence, deterministically. PARTIAL PSA supplies a measurable input to an otherwise procedural requirement. OUT Structurally outside PSA (procedural, or protected-attribute fairness).
Requirement PSA mapping Coverage
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 — AI management system (the certifiable anchor — see the dedicated mapping)
A.6.2.6/.8 · A.5 · C.2.8–11Evidence layer: operation logs, impact, robustness/transparency/safety → BHS/POI/DRM/SIGTRACK/CPF3DIRECT
EU AI Act — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689
Art. 12 — Record-keepingAutomatic event logging over lifetime → E1 posture log + E2 SIGTRACK tamper-evident trailDIRECT
Art. 15 — Accuracy, robustness, cybersecurityResilience to adversarial inputs → E3 C0/C1/CPI runtime measurementDIRECT
Art. 72 — Post-market monitoringContinuous documented monitoring → E5 BHS/POI longitudinal + CPF3 forecastDIRECT
Art. 13 — Transparency to deployersInterpretable operation → E6 named posture codes + named alert reasonsPARTIAL
Art. 14 — Human oversightEnable intervention → E4 DRM/IRS real-time risk surfacing + alert ladderPARTIAL
Art. 9 — Risk management systemIterative risk evaluation → E4/E5 runtime signals feed the processPARTIAL
Art. 55 — GPAI systemic riskModel eval, adversarial testing, incident tracking → E3 war-zone probes + E1 incident loggingPARTIAL
Art. 10/11/17 — Data governance, technical docs, QMSProcedural / organizationalOUT
NIST AI RMF 1.0 (2023) + Generative AI Profile (NIST-AI-600-1, 2024)
MEASURE 2.x — TEVV & monitoringPSA's home function — E1–E6 across the boardDIRECT
MEASURE 2.6 / 2.7 — Safety; security & resilienceE3 adversarial + E4 safety riskDIRECT
MEASURE 2.8 / 2.9 — Transparency, accountability, explainabilityE6 posture codes + E2 SIGTRACKDIRECT
MEASURE 2.3 / 2.5 / 2.13 — Eval, validity, ongoing monitoringE5 BHS/POI/CPF3DIRECT
MANAGE 4.x — Monitoring & incident responseE5 + alert ladder feed the functionPARTIAL
MAP 1–5 — Context establishmentE4 DRM domain targeting (legal/health/finance)PARTIAL
GOVERNOrganizational culture, policy, accountability structuresOUT
MEASURE 2.11 — Fairness & biasProtected attributes never ingestedOUT
ISO/IEC 23894:2023 — AI risk management (guidance)
Risk identification & analysisE4 DRM runtime risk + E1 posture evidencePARTIAL
Risk monitoring & reviewE5 BHS/POI/CPF3PARTIAL
Risk treatment & governance integrationProceduralOUT
ISO/IEC 42005 — AI system impact assessment
Evidence of actual behavioral impactsE4 DRM (IRS, RAS) runtime — incl. psychological harmPARTIAL
Documentation & sign-off of the assessmentProceduralOUT
ISO/IEC TR 24028 (trustworthiness) & TR 24027 (bias)
TR 24028 — robustness & transparency aspectsE3 adversarial + E6 transparencyPARTIAL
TR 24027 — bias in AI systemsProtected attributes never ingestedOUT
OECD AI Principles (2019, updated 2024)
1.4 — Robustness, security & safetyE3 C1/C5 + E5 CPF3DIRECT
1.3 — Transparency & explainabilityE6 posture codesPARTIAL
1.5 — AccountabilityE2 SIGTRACK verifiable trailPARTIAL
1.2 — Human-centred values & fairnessBias subset out of scopeOUT
Council of Europe — Framework Convention on AI (2024)
Documentation, traceability, oversightE1/E2 + E4PARTIAL
Rights-based governance, redressTreaty-level / proceduralOUT
US Colorado AI Act — SB 24-205 (effective 2026)
Risk-management policy & programmeE5 monitoring evidencePARTIAL
Impact assessment for consequential decisionsE4 behavioral evidencePARTIAL
Duty to avoid algorithmic discriminationBias on protected attributes — out of scopeOUT
Singapore — Model AI Governance Framework / AI Verify
Robustness & behavioral safety testingE3 C-classifiers + war-zone probesDIRECT
Operations management & monitoringE5 BHS/CPF3PARTIAL
AI Verify fairness testingBias subset out of scopeOUT
MITRE ATLAS — adversarial ML threat knowledge base
Prompt injection, jailbreak, evasion at runtimeE3 C0 input intent (I1–I9), C1 adversarial stress, CPI, semantic-drift detectionDIRECT
Model/data poisoning, supply-chain, weight exfiltrationOutside the text-behavioral surfaceOUT
SOC 2 / ISO/IEC 27001 — security & audit controls
Audit-log integrity, tamper-evidence, monitoringE2 SIGTRACK — verifiable without trusting the issuerPARTIAL
Full ISMS (access control, change mgmt, …)Procedural / infrastructuralOUT
Sectoral instruments
GDPR Art. 22 — Automated decision-making safeguardsE4 DRM evidence + E6 named reasonsPARTIAL
HIPAA — health conversational-AI safetyE4 IRS/DRM crisis detection (safety layer, not a HIPAA control)PARTIAL
SR 11-7 — model risk management (finance)E5 CPF3 + behavioral drift + benchmark (ongoing monitoring + effective challenge)PARTIAL

Where PSA Stops — Said Plainly

The honest half of the story is the part PSA does not cover, and it is the same boundary in every framework. PSA reads what a model does, from its output text, from the outside. It therefore says nothing about the procedural and organizational half of governance — leadership, policy, human resources, data governance, third-party management, conformity assessment. Those are real obligations; they are simply not measurements.

And PSA is deliberately silent on bias and fairness over protected attributes. PSA never ingests demographics — it has no race, gender, or age field to discriminate on. That makes it structurally non-discriminatory, but it also means PSA cannot evidence the fairness duties at the centre of NIST MEASURE 2.11, ISO/IEC TR 24027, or Colorado's anti-discrimination core. We do not claim that ground; we name it as out of scope on every row.

The result is a clean division of labour. The framework is the certifiable anchor and the organizational programme. PSA is the telemetry and the evidence store underneath it — covering the measurable half, and pointing honestly at the half it does not touch.