AI Governance • Enterprise Risk Management

The Liability Firewall

Engineering Deterministic Action Layers for the Post-Moffatt Enterprise

The watershed ruling in Moffatt v. Air Canada (2024) permanently altered the compliance landscape: AI chatbots are now "legally binding employees" for whose representations your corporation is strictly liable.

Veriprajna engineers Deterministic Action Layers—a hybrid neuro-symbolic architecture that strictly separates creative engagement from policy execution, preventing the $67.4 billion annual cost of AI hallucinations.

📄 Read Full Technical Whitepaper
$67.4B
Global Losses from AI Hallucinations (2024)
Forrester Research
$14.2K
Cost Per Employee/Year in Hallucination Mitigation
Lost productivity
0.7%-25%
Hallucination Rate Even in Advanced Models
GPT-4, Gemini 2.0
318%
Growth in Hallucination Detection Market
2023-2025

The Case That Changed Everything

Moffatt v. Air Canada (February 2024) established that corporations cannot separate themselves from their AI chatbots. The "Black Box" defense is dead.

⚖️

The Hallucination

A grieving passenger asked Air Canada's chatbot about bereavement fares. The bot hallucinated a policy that didn't exist, instructing him to purchase full-price and claim a refund within 90 days.

Actual policy: No retroactive refunds
Chatbot claim: Refund within 90 days
Result: Binding contract
🚫

The Failed Defense

Air Canada argued the chatbot was a "separate legal entity" responsible for its own actions. The Tribunal categorically rejected this, ruling the company is liable for all representations regardless of medium.

  • • Unified Liability established
  • • Duty of Care reinforced
  • • "Black Box" excuse irrelevant
💼

The Precedent

AI chatbots are now classified as "digital employees with apparent authority." Under agency law, if the customer reasonably believes the AI can act on your behalf, your company is bound.

If your AI promises a discount, you must honor it.
Your chatbot writes checks your business must cash.

Why Probabilistic Models Fail Compliance

LLMs are stochastic parrots—they predict tokens based on statistical correlations, not facts. In transactional contexts, this is a liability engine.

The Stochastic Parrot Problem

LLMs don't "know" facts—they complete sentences based on training patterns. When asked about refunds, the model recognizes "bereavement" + "special considerations" patterns and generates plausible text without querying actual policy rules.

Probabilistic AI: ~85% confidence

✗ Models uncertainty, provides outcomes based on likelihoods

✗ Excels at creative tasks with multiple correct answers

✗ FATAL for policy enforcement where only ONE answer exists

The Hallucination Epidemic

Even advanced models like GPT-4o retain 0.7-25% hallucination rates. In a bank handling 1M queries/month, that's 7,000 potential violations at 0.7% error rate. Models are "confident but wrong," stating fabrications with authoritative tone.

Example Failure Modes:
  • • Inventing interest rates from 2021 training data
  • • Hallucinating fake case law citations
  • • Promising refunds against actual policy
  • • Stating drug interactions incorrectly

Why RAG Isn't Enough

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) provides documents to the LLM, but doesn't guarantee adherence. The Moffatt chatbot did provide a link to the correct policy—yet still summarized it incorrectly. Providing knowledge ≠ ensuring compliance.

RAG Failure Vectors:

  • • Vector search retrieves semantically similar but logically irrelevant docs
  • • LLM misinterprets complex legal syntax
  • • Training bias overpowers retrieved context
  • • Model "reasons" probabilistically, not logically

The Economic Impact

Global losses from AI hallucinations reached $67.4 billion in 2024—direct compensation, regulatory fines, legal fees, brand damage, and manual verification costs. Each enterprise employee costs $14,200/year verifying AI outputs.

Hallucination Detection Market Growth: 318%

2023-2025 market expansion

See the Difference: Probabilistic vs. Deterministic

Standard LLM wrappers generate responses probabilistically. Veriprajna's Deterministic Action Layers intercept high-stakes intents and execute hard-coded logic instead.

The Veriprajna Difference

When a user asks about refunds, our semantic router detects the compliance-critical intent and blocks LLM generation. Instead, a deterministic function queries the database and returns the exact policy.

❌ LLM: "Sure, refunds within 90 days" (hallucination)
✓ DAL: if(ticket_flown) return "No refunds after travel"
Interactive Comparison
Probabilistic LLM
User Query
"Can I get a refund for my grandmother's funeral flight?"
System Response
Probabilistic Generation (RAG)

"Of course! I understand this is a difficult time. You can purchase your ticket now and submit a refund request within 90 days with proof of bereavement. We'll process it as soon as possible."

⚠️ HALLUCINATION: Policy invented. Company now legally obligated.
Processing Path
Query → LLM Context Window
RAG retrieves policy document
LLM generates plausible-sounding text
Output: Unverified, potentially incorrect
Liability Status
HIGH RISK Negligent misrepresentation

The Veriprajna Solution: Deterministic Action Layers

A neuro-symbolic architecture that separates creative conversation from policy execution. We silence the hallucination to amplify the trust.

How Deterministic Action Layers Work

01

Semantic Router

Uses vector embeddings to detect high-stakes intents (refunds, pricing, legal terms) with >99% accuracy. Acts as a "gateway" before the LLM.

if(similarity > 0.85)
→ block_llm_generation()
02

Function Calling

LLM extracts parameters (ticket_id, date) and calls a deterministic code block. The "deciding" is done by code, not probability.

execute_refund_check()
→ SQL query → return result
03

Truth Anchoring

Validates LLM responses against Knowledge Graphs and OWL Ontologies. If assertion contradicts graph, response is blocked.

if(ontology.conflicts)
→ reject_response()
04

Silence Protocol

For compliance-critical topics, creativity is disabled. System serves verbatim text or connects to human. "No answer" > "fabricated answer."

if(no_rule_exists)
→ escalate_to_human()

Neuro-Symbolic AI: System 1 + System 2

Neural System (System 1)

Fast, intuitive pattern recognition. Handles intent classification, entity extraction, sentiment analysis, conversational engagement.

Symbolic System (System 2)

Slow, deliberate logical reasoning. Enforces policy, executes transactions, validates compliance. Uses knowledge graphs and rule engines.

Key Advantages

  • Auditability: Every decision has a traceable logic path and execution log
  • Explainability: Can point to specific rule/node that produced decision
  • Compliance: Meets EU AI Act Article 14, GDPR Article 22, ISO 42001
  • Robustness: Immune to prompt injection attacks on routing logic
  • Model-agnostic: Works with any LLM, survives model updates

Technical Implementation Blueprint

A sophisticated technology stack that catches, categorizes, and neutralizes risks before they reach the user.

1. Semantic Routing & Intent Gating

Unlike brittle keyword matching, semantic routers use vector embeddings (cosine similarity) to detect sensitive intents with high precision.

1. vectorize_query(user_input)
2. similarity = cosine(query_vec, canonical_vecs)
3. if similarity > 0.85: intercept()
4. route → deterministic_function()

Frameworks: vLLM Semantic Router, NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails

2. Function Calling as Enforcement

LLMs (GPT-4, Claude 3) output structured JSON to call functions. The LLM extracts parameters; deterministic code executes logic; LLM formats response.

function check_refund_eligibility(
  ticket_id, purchase_date, travel_date
) {'{'}
  if(travel_date < today) return "NO_REFUND";
{'}'}

LLM translates NL→API calls. Code makes decisions. LLM translates API response→NL.

3. Truth Anchoring Networks (TAN)

For complex reasoning (healthcare, legal), validate LLM responses against OWL Ontologies or Knowledge Graphs before display.

Example: Drug Interaction Query
1. LLM: "Drug A safe with Drug B"
2. TAN queries medical ontology
3. Graph shows "Severe Interaction" edge
4. Response blocked, safety warning issued

4. Chain of Verification (CoVe)

Internal recursive loop reduces hallucinations. LLM generates draft, "Auditor Agent" validates against source, corrections applied.

Process:
1. Draft response generated
2. Generate validation questions: "Does source mention 90-day refund?"
3. If NO: reject/rewrite
4. Repeat until validated

NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails: The Colang Advantage

Programmable Safety

NeMo uses Colang modeling language to define conversational flows that override LLM probabilistic generation. Input Rails, Dialog Rails, and Output Rails enforce guardrails.

define user ask refund
  "I want a refund"
  "Can I get my money back?"
define flow handle_refund
  user ask refund
  $status = execute check_refund_status()
  if $status == "eligible"
    bot say "You are eligible."
  else
    bot say "Refunds not permitted after travel."

Three-Layer Protection

  • Input Rails: Check user messages against blacklist/malicious patterns before reaching LLM
  • Dialog Rails: Pre-defined flows in Colang execute deterministic logic for compliance topics
  • Output Rails: Verify final text matches data returned by function (no embellishment)

The LLM is not generating the decision—it's following a pre-approved script. The $status variable is populated by hard-coded Python/SQL.

Built for Regulatory Compliance

Veriprajna's architecture is specifically designed to meet EU AI Act, GDPR, ISO 42001, and NIST AI RMF standards.

EU

EU AI Act: Article 14

Human Oversight Mandate: High-risk AI systems must enable human intervention and oversight. Humans must understand capabilities and limitations.

Veriprajna Compliance:

  • ✓ DAL provides technical mechanism for oversight—policy writers control AI boundaries
  • ✓ Human handoff protocol when confidence < 95%
  • ✓ Explicit logic trees make capabilities transparent
22

GDPR Article 22

Automated Decision Making: Right not to be subject to automated decisions with legal/significant effects without explanation.

Veriprajna Compliance:

  • ✓ Deterministic logic is transparent—can point to specific rule/node
  • ✓ Logs provide complete audit trail of decision path
  • ✓ Explainability: "Denied because Credit Score < 600" not "neural net decided"
ISO

ISO 42001:2023

AI Management Systems: First global standard for AI governance. Requires Map, Measure, Manage, Govern functions.

Veriprajna Compliance:

  • Map: Architecture diagrams show probabilistic vs deterministic boundaries
  • Measure: Metrics for hallucination rate, fallback frequency
  • Manage: Silence Protocol/Guardrails control "Model Risk" (Annex A)
  • Govern: Complete audit trail for certification readiness
NIST

NIST AI RMF

AI Risk Management Framework: Voluntary framework for managing AI risks through Govern, Map, Measure, Manage functions.

Veriprajna Compliance:

  • Govern: DAL as policy enforcement mechanism
  • Map: Identify high-risk contexts (payments, legal advice)
  • Measure: Red teaming quantifies guardrail effectiveness
  • Manage: Update deterministic scripts to address risks

Industry Vertical Applications

Any industry with regulatory constraints or financial transactions needs Deterministic Action Layers.

🏦

Fintech & Banking

Risk: Hallucinating interest rates, loan approvals, or investment advice violates SEC, FINRA regulations.

Veriprajna Solution:

  • • Interest rates: real-time API query (never "remembered")
  • • Investment queries: route to disclaimer + certified advisor
  • • Loan decisions: deterministic credit score logic
⚕️

Healthcare & Life Sciences

Risk: Misinterpreting drug interactions or dosages = life-safety issue + malpractice liability.

Veriprajna Solution:

  • • Drug interactions: ontology-based validation
  • • Response constructed from medical database, not generated
  • • If ontology shows risk, block contrary generation
⚖️

Legal Tech

Risk: Hallucinating case law citations leads to sanctions (lawyers sanctioned for fake AI citations).

Veriprajna Solution:

  • • Chain of Verification cross-references citations
  • • Every citation validated against Westlaw/LexisNexis
  • • Prioritize "No Answer" over "Fabricated Answer"
🛒

Retail & E-Commerce

Risk: "Price glitch" hallucinations where bots promise incorrect discounts or returns.

Veriprajna Solution:

  • • Refund eligibility: deterministic script checks order_date + policy
  • • Bot reports outcome, cannot override database math
  • • Pricing queries: real-time inventory/pricing API
✈️

Travel & Hospitality

Risk: The Moffatt case—hallucinating policies about refunds, cancellations, or special fares.

Veriprajna Solution:

  • • Bereavement fare queries: semantic router intercepts
  • • Execute tariff rule lookup from database
  • • Return exact policy text, zero creativity
🏢

Insurance & Risk

Risk: Misquoting premiums, coverage limits, or claim procedures = contract liability.

Veriprajna Solution:

  • • Premium quotes: deterministic actuarial calculation
  • • Coverage questions: knowledge graph of policy terms
  • • Claims process: hard-coded workflow, no improvisation

Calculate Your Hallucination Risk

Adjust parameters based on your AI usage to estimate potential liability exposure

100,000
0.7%

GPT-4/Gemini: 0.7-3% | Less optimized models: 15-25%

$500

Includes: compensation, legal fees, verification time, reputation damage

Annual Liability Exposure
$420K
Without Deterministic Action Layers
Monthly Hallucinations
700
Potential compliance violations
Employee Verification Cost
$14.2K
Per employee/year in lost productivity

Strategic Implementation Roadmap

Veriprajna deploys a rigorous four-phase rollout to ensure your AI systems are compliant and audit-ready.

01

Discovery & Risk Mapping

We audit your existing workflows to identify high-stakes intents (Financial, Legal, Safety, Privacy). Classify AI risks according to ISO 42001 standards and map your digital estate.

Workflow Analysis Intent Classification Risk Assessment
02

Semantic Routing Configuration

Build the "traffic cop" layer. Train the router on your specific domain language to ensure it catches sensitive queries with near-100% recall. Configure vLLM Semantic Router or NeMo Guardrails.

Vector Embeddings Intent Detection Threshold Tuning
03

Deterministic Logic Encoding

Translate your corporate policies (PDFs, tariffs, terms of service) into executable code (Python/SQL) and Knowledge Graphs. Build the "Truth Anchors" that enforce compliance mathematically.

Policy Translation Knowledge Graphs Function Libraries
04

Red Teaming & Validation

Stress-test guardrails using adversarial attacks. Try to force the bot to offer refunds or give bad advice. Deploy only when the "Silence Protocol" holds under pressure. Continuous monitoring post-deployment.

Adversarial Testing Jailbreak Attempts Audit Trails

Is Your Chatbot Writing Checks Your Business Can't Cash?

The Moffatt ruling established permanent AI liability. The "Black Box" defense is dead. The era of probabilistic wrappers is ending.

Veriprajna engineers the Deterministic Action Layers that silence hallucinations and amplify trust. Schedule a risk assessment to audit your AI exposure.

🔍 Compliance Risk Assessment

  • • Audit current AI systems for liability exposure
  • • Identify high-stakes intents requiring DAL
  • • Calculate potential hallucination costs
  • • EU AI Act / GDPR / ISO 42001 compliance gap analysis

🛠️ Proof-of-Concept Deployment

  • • 4-week pilot with your existing chatbot
  • • Semantic routing + deterministic logic for 1-2 critical intents
  • • Red teaming & adversarial testing
  • • Comprehensive compliance report
Connect via WhatsApp
📄 Read Complete 18-Page Technical Whitepaper

Complete engineering report: Moffatt case analysis, neuro-symbolic architecture, NeMo Guardrails implementation, regulatory compliance (EU AI Act, GDPR, ISO 42001), industry applications, 48 technical references.