Skip to content

How the governance stack differs

AI-governance tools cover different scopes: documentation, execution environments, observability, policy workflow, and evidence. Product comparisons are meaningful only against a named control objective and deployment; this page does not claim that other approaches fail as a class.

cybiont's publicly checkable result is the signed AI-response record: a valid bundle, a tampered negative control, and an offline verifier with explicit limits. Browser DLP, policy workflow, and the broader ledger remain prototype work.

Where each module sits today

  • Browser DLPprototype / not a production system. The shipped manifest carries that warning.
  • Compliance ledgerprototype / public verifier available. The public package establishes only its stated request-and-response commitments.
  • Governance workflowprototype. Risk-adaptive policy and review are design targets, not a production claim.
  • Trusted executionarchitecture concept / partner-dependent. Any isolation and evidence properties must be established for the actual deployment.

Operating principles

  • Evidence and control remain with the client, not the hyperscaler.
  • Human-in-the-loop governance is first-class — the system prevents single-channel dominance.
  • Evidence available for a pilot, its claims, and its acceptance criteria must be identified in writing before engagement.

Back to the governance stack