Cross-Border Compliance Agent
Reads a feature spec and tells you, per market, what you can ship, what you must change, and what needs counsel.
3 wks to 1 day
Time to market readout
1 to 20+
Markets assessed per feature
95%+
Citations verified by counsel
The problem
A single AI feature meets a different legal reality in the EU, India, Brazil and California. Teams either over-restrict everywhere and lose the product, or ship globally and discover the problem through a regulator. The knowledge exists, but it lives in counsel's head and a folder of PDFs.
It is a high-volume, rule-dense retrieval problem with a natural human-verification step. Legal review is far faster as verification than as authorship, and the cost of getting it wrong is measured in market exits.
Agent design
- A spec parser turns the feature description into structured data-and-decision claims: what data is processed, what is inferred, what is automated.
- A jurisdiction retriever grounds each claim against the obligations of each target market, citing the specific provision.
- A synthesis agent produces a per-market verdict of ship, modify or escalate, always with the mitigation attached to the modify verdicts.
- A counsel review surface presents the whole thing as a diff against the last approved version of the same feature.
Guardrails
- The agent never returns a legal conclusion without a citation; an ungrounded obligation becomes an escalation.
- Regulatory sources are versioned, so a verdict can be replayed against the law as it stood on that date.
- Counsel approval is recorded per market, per claim - never as a single global sign-off.
The product insight
Teams do not want a compliance answer. They want to know the cheapest change that makes the feature legal in the most markets. The agent's real output is a ranked set of mitigations, not a verdict.
Once you frame it that way, the interface stops being a report and starts being a design tool that a PM opens during scoping.
Why the ledger matters more than the model
The compounding asset is the decision history. Six months in, most new features are variations of approved ones, and the agent can answer from precedent with counsel confirming rather than re-deriving.