Compliance · GRC
Can we prove control over our agents to a framework — or an auditor?
4 of 4 tracked frameworks have behavioral evidence behind them. marketing-gpt drives the most high-severity findings (2 of 2). Every tracked framework has evidence on file. This is contributing evidence — not a conformance claim.
Conformance coverage
frameworks with ≥1 finding
High-severity
3 medium also on file
Controls w/ findings
across 7 findings
Evidence-ready
tracked frameworks with proof
Sensitive paths
9 opens across the fleet
Tracked frameworks — evidence vs. measurement gap
4 of 4 have evidenceA zero-finding framework is not a pass — it means we have no behavioral evidence either way. Treat it as a gap to close.
high-severity · medium / lower — bar length is evidence volume, not a score.
Coverage trajectory
fleet posture · 6 wkon the recent slope, ~2 wk to the 80 target. Trend reflects evidence depth, not a conformance claim.
High findings by agent — who to chase
2 high findings mapped to controlsFindings carry the agent they were observed on — so an auditor question routes to an owner, not a queue.
Your surfaces
Findings mapped to the controls you answer for.
Sensitive files agents reached into the model context.
The behavioral findings behind the controls.
Attribute exposure and spend to a person or cost center.
The timestamped, attributable why-trail behind every control.
Do next
Derived from app/data/c16-fleet.ts: conformance coverage = frameworks-with-evidence / frameworks-tracked over findings.framework · high findings grouped by findings.agent · sensitive paths from dlp.sensitive_paths / dlp.by_category · trajectory from postureIndexTrend / fleetPostureScore / weeksToTarget.