c16
Site
Page

Prove agent control coverage — honestly.

For compliance and privacy — evidence you can hand a regulator, not a wall of green.

An auditor doesn't accept a checkmark. They ask what you measured, on which agents, what it found, and who did it. The control plane turns how your agents actually behave into framework-mapped evidence — with the timestamped, attributable record sitting behind every finding.

The pain

AI governance demands evidence you can't produce.

When a regulator asks how autonomous agents are governed, the answer rests on a spreadsheet of checkmarks no auditor will accept — and on access that left no record at all.

A checkmark is not evidence

A green box says someone believes a control exists. It doesn't say what was measured, on which agents, or what the measurement found. An auditor asks for the measurement, the timestamp, and the name behind it.

Zero findings looks like a pass

A framework you never measured looks identical to one that came back clean. One is conformance; the other is a blind spot you'd be signing your name under.

No why-trail behind the control

Findings are the headline. When an auditor asks who touched which data, when, and why — the exhaustive record beneath the framework mapping usually doesn't exist.

How the control plane resolves it

Runtime behavior becomes mapped, weighted, exportable evidence.

1.

Auto-map findings to frameworks

Every agent finding is tagged to OWASP LLM Top 10, OWASP Agentic, MITRE ATLAS, and NIST AI RMF — so a behavior becomes an entry against a named control, not a loose alert.

2.

Track exposure and credential conformance

Sensitive-data reads — secrets, credentials, ssh, shell history — and off-standard machine credentials roll up as evidence, each tied to the agent and the owner behind it.

3.

Open the Activity Log

Behind every finding sits the timestamped, attributable why-trail: who did what, when, against which data — the exhaustive record an auditor asks for, queryable and exportable as evidence.

Evidence, not a conformance claim

A previewable evidence pack that admits its own boundaries.

The pack is the artifact you walk into the audit with — and the honesty is the point. Projected numbers are labeled projected; live numbers are labeled live; unmeasured frameworks are named as gaps, not passes.

Previewable, exportable pack

Scope, per-framework why-trails, and an attestation assemble into a document you can review before you export. You walk in with the artifact, not a promise to produce one.

Blind spots named, not hidden

A framework with zero findings is marked a measurement gap — false confidence — never a clean bill of health. Shadow agents that emit no telemetry are shown as the one hole instrumentation can't backfill.

Every row attributable

Each Activity Log entry is timestamped and ties to a human owner and the finding — and therefore the framework — it evidences. Accountability, without inspecting the content itself.

Projected vs. live, always labeled

Contributing evidence is never dressed up as a conformance guarantee. An auditor trusts a record that admits what it measured and what it didn't far more than a wall of green.

The story in numbers

Live behavior, already mapped to the controls you answer for.

4/4
frameworks with behavioral evidence — gaps named, not passed
2
high-severity findings, each mapped to a control
6
sensitive paths agents touched, with an owner attached
63%
control coverage — governed and instrumented

Walk into the audit with evidence — and the why-trail behind it.

Findings mapped to frameworks, exposure and credentials tracked, every control backed by an attributable record. Blind spots named, projected vs. live labeled.