AI Compliance Brief is an editorial intelligence service. Every Monday at 06:00 UTC, our desk dispatches a single, two-page dossier that compresses every regulatory move worth knowing about into a three-minute read. This page documents the process, the sources, and the editorial controls that stand behind each edition.
1. Surveillance — what we watch, every day
Our desk runs a continuous surveillance sweep across primary regulatory and policy sources, organised by jurisdiction:
- European Union — Official Journal of the EU; AI Office communications; Commission delegated acts; CJEU rulings; Member-State competent-authority notices; ENISA technical guidance.
- United Kingdom — DSIT consultations and policy papers; ICO enforcement decisions; CMA market investigations; FCA / Bank of England technology rule-making.
- United States — Federal Register; OMB and OSTP memoranda; NIST publications; FTC consent decrees; SEC and CFPB rule-making; NYDFS Part 500; Colorado AI Act and California ADMT regulations.
- Asia-Pacific — Singapore MAS guidelines; Japan METI and PPC notices; South Korea PIPC enforcement; Australia OAIC determinations; India MeitY drafts.
- International — OECD AI Policy Observatory; ISO/IEC technical committees; G7 Hiroshima process; standards bodies (CEN-CENELEC JTC 21, IEEE).
We supplement primary sources with selected enforcement-action databases, court dockets (PACER, CURIA, BAILII), and the published research output of recognised academic and policy institutions. We do not rely on consumer technology press for anything that ends up in the brief.
2. Triage — the three-question filter
A signal earns a place in the brief only if it survives three questions, asked in this order:
- Is it actionable? Does it create or extinguish an obligation, a deadline, a defence, or a measurable risk for a deploying organisation? If the answer is “interesting but not actionable,” it does not run.
- Is it material? Does the obligation, deadline, or risk meet a materiality threshold — typically a credible path to fines > €1m, mandatory product changes, or a board-level reporting trigger?
- Is it timely? Does our subscriber base benefit from knowing this this week, ahead of the trade press, rather than next quarter?
3. Synthesis — the AI-native desk
Each candidate signal passes through an AI-native synthesis layer that performs four tasks: (a) cross-reference the signal against the existing rule-base for that jurisdiction; (b) extract the precise legal and operational obligations; (c) identify likely first-mover and worst-case interpretations; and (d) draft a plain-English summary suitable for an executive reader.
This is the leverage point that lets a small editorial team produce institutional-grade output. It is also the reason every edition is reviewed by a human editor before publication. The AI drafts; the editor decides.
4. Editorial review — the four-eyes rule
No edition ships without the four-eyes rule:
- Eyes one and two — the desk. The drafting editor checks every claim against the cited primary source, rewrites for clarity, and removes anything that cannot be defended with a citation.
- Eyes three and four — the senior reviewer. A second editor reviews the dossier end-to-end for legal accuracy, materiality, and tone, and signs the dispatch slip before the brief is queued for 06:00 UTC release.
Where a claim depends on judgement rather than primary text, we say so explicitly and label it as analysis rather than fact.
5. Citation discipline
Every paragraph that asserts a regulatory obligation, a fine ceiling, or a deadline carries an inline citation to the primary source. Footnote-style references appear in the dispatch sidebar of every edition. We do not paraphrase secondary commentary as fact, and we do not link to paywalled trade press as a primary source. If we cannot find the original, we do not run the item.
6. Corrections policy
Errors are inevitable in fast-moving regulation. Material corrections are issued in the next edition, prefixed with Corrections of record, identifying the original edition and the correction in plain language. Substantive corrections to actionable items are also dispatched out-of-band to affected subscribers within 24 hours of confirmation.
7. Independence, conflicts, and disclosure
AI Compliance Brief is independently owned. The editorial desk does not provide named legal advice, does not represent individual organisations before regulators, and does not accept sponsorship, advertising, or paid placement of any kind. Our revenue is subscription-only. Where the desk has a non-trivial relationship with a named entity referenced in an edition, the relationship is disclosed inline.
8. Limits of the brief
The brief is editorial intelligence, not legal advice. It will not anticipate every regulator’s enforcement priorities, and it will not substitute for engagement with named counsel on organisation-specific facts. We are very direct with our subscribers about this trade-off: we are the first 80% of an internal compliance function for less than the cost of a single billable hour, and we tell you explicitly when an item warrants escalation to outside counsel.
9. How the Bureau and Sovereign tiers extend the brief
Operator subscribers receive the weekly brief and the searchable archive. Bureau subscribers add a private quarterly briefing with the desk and up to five team seats. Sovereign subscribers commission bespoke jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction memoranda and receive named-editor coverage of board-level filings. The same editorial controls apply to every tier.
10. Comments and feedback
Editorial comments, source tips, and corrections are welcome at [email protected]. We acknowledge every substantive contribution and credit those that lead to a published correction or new line of inquiry.