Where AI is already in the work. Where Fydis lets it stay.
Five places the firm has to give the regulator an answer this year. Each one is somewhere a team is already drafting in AI without the chain to sign it. The cases below show the same proof structure running across climate disclosure, operational risk, remediation, AML/CTF, and ADM transparency. The use case changes; the chain does not.
Climate-related disclosure under AASB S2
Generate Scope 1 / 2 / 3 narrative with source-attested emissions data. Every figure traces to a measurement, every measurement to a method, every method to the AASB clause it answers.
View analysisOperational risk reporting · CPS 230
Detect and classify operational incidents. Approver sign-off, audit log, and CPS 230 incident register entry produced from the same trace.
View analysisCustomer remediation · ASIC RG 277
Quantify cohort impact down to the source row. RG 277 (Consumer Remediation, updated Sep 2022) is satisfied as a side-effect of the analysis being correct. The submission and its workpapers are produced from the same chain.
View analysisSuspicious-matter detection · AML/CTF
Flag and classify SMR candidates with a reviewable basis for each flag under s41(1)(f). The SMR draft, its rationale, and the underlying evidence are bound together.
View analysisADM transparency · Privacy Act APP 1.7
Privacy-policy disclosure of automated decision-making systems under APP 1.7. The underlying per-decision record Fydis captures is what the disclosure summarises.
View analysis