Continuous audit trails, framework-mapped evidence, and executive dashboards, generated automatically from your live AI inventory.
The AI question is now a standing board topic, and "we're working on it" is no longer an acceptable answer.
Screenshots, exported CSVs, and ad-hoc queries don't hold up on the second audit, let alone the fifth.
Framework attestations require repeatable, timestamped evidence tied to the actual state of your AI estate.
The AI question is now a standing board topic, and "we are working on it" has stopped being an acceptable answer. Only four in ten organisations have a formal AI governance framework in place, according to Protiviti's 2026 AI Pulse Survey of roughly 345 C-suite executives, board members and IT leaders worldwide. The governance body meets. The evidence it needs is usually still assembled by hand, for that one meeting, by the same people who are meant to be running security the rest of the quarter.
This is the question that sounds easiest and gets answered slowest, because the list underneath it is normally compiled for the occasion rather than maintained. An inventory that is generated rather than assembled answers this one inside the meeting instead of a week after it.
A posture question is a trend question. One number from one point in time cannot answer it, which is why the honest response is so often a request for more time. Trending is what turns a status update into something a board can act on.
Note the two halves. Being compliant and being able to demonstrate compliance are separate problems, and the second one is the one that eats the quarter. Evidence that already carries the control it satisfies removes the reconstruction work rather than rescheduling it.
Security teams are least prepared for this one, because it is not a security question and it arrives anyway. It arrives because AI spend is discretionary, visible and growing, which makes it the line a board can most easily ask about.
Underneath all four sits one condition. Screenshots, exported spreadsheets and ad hoc queries do not hold up on the second audit, let alone the fifth. Among breaches involving shadow AI, organisations reported paying a regulatory fine in about one in five cases, according to IBM's Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026, which studied 602 breached organisations across 17 industries and 16 countries.
AIBound turns your live inventory, identities, and risk scores into audit-ready evidence and executive views on demand.
| Report | Framework | Coverage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q3 AI Board Report | Internal | 100% | Approved |
| EU AI Act Register | EU AI Act | 94% | Active |
| AI RMF Attestation | NIST AI RMF | 91% | Active |
| High-Risk AI Log | Internal | 100% | Active |
| Vendor AI Review | SOC 2 | 88% | Pending Review |
AIBound deploys read only and without installing endpoint agents, connecting directly to the identity, cloud and SaaS platforms your AI estate already runs on. Because nothing is installed on individual devices, there is no rollout to coordinate team by team with IT, and the live inventory begins populating as soon as the connections are authorized.
No. AIBound reads your AI estate through existing identity, cloud and API connections rather than installing software on individual devices. That agentless model is also what keeps the inventory current, since a new AI tool shows up because a new connection or credential exists, not because a device happened to check in.
AIBound tracks the AI your organisation already knows about alongside the AI it does not: sanctioned tools, unsanctioned shadow AI, and the identities, agents and MCP connections tied to them. A governance report is only as complete as the inventory behind it, which is why coverage extends past whatever is already on an approved list.
AIBound connects to the identity providers, cloud platforms and SaaS applications already in use, the same connections that already govern access across the organisation. Reporting is generated from that live connection layer, so a board report reflects the inventory as it exists in production rather than a static export prepared for the meeting.
Grades are mapped to the EU AI Act and to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. Mapping means a grade can be reported against the structure those frameworks use. It is not certification. The NIST AI Risk Management Framework, document NIST AI 100-1, is published by NIST in its own words as "intended for voluntary use" and operates no certification or attestation scheme, so "mapped to" is accurate and "attested against" would not be.
The level of visibility here would save us weeks of manual audit preparation.
Generate defensible AI governance reports and audit trails on demand.