Solutions
What you have to prove, and what proves it
Regulatory pressure arrives by sector and accountability arrives by role. Both end in the same question: where is the evidence? These are the modules that produce it.
By sector
Five sectors, five different reasons the evidence matters
The technical work is similar across sectors. What differs is which regulator asks, what they ask for, and what happens when the answer is an attestation rather than a result.
- DORA
- EU AI Act
- PCI DSS
Financial services and insurance
DORA made threat-led testing and operational resilience a supervisory expectation rather than a good practice, and the same institutions are deploying AI into credit, claims and advice. The evidence burden is now continuous and the regulator asks who tested it, when, and what the result was.
- NIS2
- MITRE ATT&CK
Defense and critical infrastructure
NIS2 pushed risk management and incident reporting onto essential entities whose estates mix enterprise IT with operational technology and physical and airspace telemetry. Those layers are rarely tested together, and the paths that matter cross between them.
- EU AI Act
- OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications
- OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications
AI-native and technology companies
When the product is the model and the agents around it, guardrail integrity and agent authorization are not infrastructure concerns but product risk. Enterprise buyers now ask for evidence of both during procurement, and an honest answer shortens the cycle.
Modules that answer it
- NIS2
- EU AI Act
- ISO/IEC 27001
Healthcare and pharmaceuticals
Clinical and research environments carry special-category personal data under the GDPR alongside AI deployed into triage, imaging and discovery. Governance has to be demonstrable, and the consequence of an unvalidated data boundary is not an outage.
Modules that answer it
- NIS2
- EU AI Act
- NIST AI RMF
Public sector
Public bodies deploying AI into citizen-facing decisions sit squarely in the EU AI Act's high-risk categories, with procurement rules that require documented assurance rather than vendor attestation. Evidence has to survive publication.
Modules that answer it
By buyer
Four roles, four different things to defend
Validation evidence serves a different argument depending on who is holding it. These are the four people who usually bring Veync in, and what each one needs it to settle.
- Accountable for: control effectiveness
Chief Information Security Officer
You are asked whether the controls work, and the honest answer today is usually derived from a product catalogue rather than from a test. Validation turns that into per-control verdicts you can take to a board without hedging.
- Accountable for: safe AI deployment
Head of AI or Chief AI Officer
You own the deployment of models and agents and, increasingly, the regulatory exposure that comes with them. You need to show that guardrails hold and that agents cannot exceed their authority, before someone else establishes it for you.
Modules that answer it
- Accountable for: offensive coverage
Head of Red Team
Your constraint is capacity, not skill. Autonomous agents cover the breadth and the repetition so your operators spend their time on the novel work that actually needs a human adversary.
Modules that answer it
- Accountable for: demonstrable compliance
Chief Risk or Compliance Officer
You report a position you did not test, assembled from assessments others completed. Evidence-linked gap registers replace that with something an auditor can follow back to an executed action.
Modules that answer it
Start from what you are accountable for
A validation briefing starts with the obligation you actually carry, then works back to the scope and the evidence that would satisfy it.
Veync operates only under written authorization and defined rules of engagement.