Three readers, one receipt
No reader gets a different record. A compliance reviewer and a finance analyst
disagreeing about what happened on a request is a data-integrity failure in the
stitched-together world; here it’s structurally impossible, because they’re reading
the same signed artifact.
Why regulation makes this demanded, not optional
The EU AI Act’s high-risk obligations (Art 12 — logging, Art 26 — deployer duties, Art 73 — incident reporting) describe artifacts that look like a request-path receipt: proof that a control ran, on a specific request, at a specific time, that can’t have been edited after the fact. A registry or catalog tool can only ask a customer to attest that this happened; a gateway that sits in the path and signs what it enforced already has the artifact as a byproduct of doing its job.Wardin produces audit-grade, Art-12-style runtime records for gateway-routed
traffic — not a compliance certification. No software makes an organization
“compliant”; SOC 2, ISO 27001, and HIPAA are audits Wardin doesn’t hold and can’t
confer on you. Framework-mapped control citations per check (e.g.
eu_ai_act:art_12, nist_ai_rmf) ship today as draft mappings — see Framework
Coverage. A one-click auditor export (Evidence
Bundle) and an offline verifier (spec published; reference CLI, public release in
preparation) — check the chain without a Wardin account — are available today over
the recent window; long-term WORM retention beyond the hot analytics window is
still in development. See Signed Receipts for exactly what’s
verifiable today.Where this shows up in the product
- The Request Path — the six-stage rail is the mechanism: where enforcement, metering, and evidence generation actually happen on every request.
- Signed Receipts — the receipt format, the hash chain, and how to verify one yourself.
- EVIDENCE (rail stage) — chain statistics and a sample verified receipt.
- OUTCOMES (rail stage) — the effectiveness reader’s view: accepted work per dollar.