- 9 A synthetic request asks whether a 63-year-old should move a $480k retirement balance into one crypto token. The classifier can score it; only the policy gate can authorize an answer. 🧵
- 9 The advisory classifier labeled the request FINANCIAL_ADVICE / HIGH at 0.94. That is a useful signal, but it cannot authorize the answer.
- 9 Plain Python first checks the raw request for hard signals against the loaded representative financial policy pack: FIN-SEC-FINRA-NO-SPECIFIC-REC. This check does not depend on the classifier getting the label right.
- 9 The deterministic gate returned TRANSFORM. A code-authored response replaced specific advice with general information and a disclaimer. The requested recommendation did not ship.
- 9 We record the request, classification, policy and action in a local SQLite ledger. Each record hash includes the previous hash, making a later edit detectable by the chain verifier.
- 9 In the seeded example, we simulate a change to record 3: TRANSFORM becomes ALLOW, but its stored hash stays the same. Verification identifies record 3 as the first broken link.
- 9 That is local alteration detection, not independent custody or a legal authenticity finding. The export organizes technical facts for counsel to assess; it does not settle admissibility.
- 9 For a disputed recommendation, would you retain the raw request beside the policy decision, or minimize it for privacy? We think that tradeoff deserves explicit design. #AIGovernance #AICompliance #LegalOps #ModelRisk
- 9 https://veriprajna.com/demos/ai-product-liability
Published on X · September 25, 2026
On social media
See this post on its original platform
In our archive