As the EU AI Act’s transparency requirements come into force, organizations need to be on the front foot when it comes to regulatory readiness and how AI is being used. Facing fines of up to €35 million or 7% of global turnover mean it’s no longer enough to just monitor communication risks. Firms must definitively prove how those risks were identified, reviewed, and escalated.
When regulators ask questions, most compliance teams don’t face the issue of a lack of data. In most cases, the information does exist somewhere within the organization. The harder challenge is bringing that evidence together quickly, clearly, and defensibly across different systems, workflows, and teams.
SVP & GM of Arctera and Enterprise Vault.
That challenge is becoming more important as regulators place greater emphasis on demonstrable outcomes. Firms are increasingly expected to show not only that controls exist, but how those controls operate when a potential risk emerges. This is where comms surveillance has become central to effective compliance.
From surveillance activity to supervisory outcomes
Comms surveillance has typically been measured through activity. Compliance teams have tracked how many alerts were generated, how many reviews were completed, how many cases were escalated, and how many investigations were closed.
Those metrics still matter, but they only tell part of the story.
A stronger measure of readiness is whether a firm can connect surveillance activity to supervisory outcomes. Can it explain why a particular risk was identified? Can it show how an alert was reviewed? Can it document the evidence that supported a decision? Can it demonstrate whether escalation was appropriate? And, crucially, can it reconstruct that process months later when a regulator asks for evidence?
These are the questions that now sit at the heart of regulatory readiness.
The evidence chain is often too fragmented
Most firms have already solved the basic issue of capturing communications. The next stage is more complex: connecting communications, alerts, reviews, investigations, and outcomes into a clear and defensible chain of evidence.
Too often, that chain is fragmented and therefore, obsolete. Comms often sit in one platform, while surveillance workflows sit in another, and investigation records somewhere else entirely. Each system may function effectively in isolation, but the gaps are evident when compliance teams need to explain what happened from start to finish.
This is especially pertinent as AI-driven communications become a bigger compliance risk. Our research found while more than half (55%) of organizations globally have the core AI policies, training and review steps in place, fewer than one in five (19%) have the logging, retention, detection and scoring controls needed to prove what happened.
Without that evidence layer in place, organizations lack being able to confidently demonstrate what AI tools produced, who reviewed it, where it went and whether the record was kept.
The result is unnecessary friction: investigations take longer than they should, evidence is harder to assemble, and supervisory decisions still require additional manual validation.
Regulatory requests become more disruptive when teams have to spend valuable time piecing together information that should already be connected. This risks turning into an operational readiness nightmare.
Transparency is becoming a regulatory expectation
As regulatory expectations continue to evolve, firms need to be able to demonstrate how oversight works in practice. In other words, showing how potential risks are identified, how decisions are made, how evidence is reviewed, and how outcomes are recorded.
A surveillance program is only truly effective if it can support that level of transparency. Regulators may not prescribe a specific architecture, but they do expect firms to show that oversight is effective, repeatable, and defensible.
That's why organizations are now looking beyond individual tools and towards a more unified approach to communications governance, surveillance, investigations, and retention.
Operational visibility matters as much as information storage
Operational visibility is becoming just as important as data capture. Compliance teams need to understand where information is stored, as well as how it moves through the organization once a potential issue is identified.
They need to be able to follow the full chain of activity from initial alert through to investigation, escalation, decision, and retention. Comms surveillance has become a critical part of evidence framework.
Done well, it helps teams identify risk earlier, investigate issues more efficiently and demonstrate how supervision operated over time.
Readiness is about proving what happened
The priority is now creating the context needed to make better decisions, and to evidence those decisions effectively.
Regulatory readiness increasingly depends on the ability to demonstrate judgement: why a case was reviewed, what information was considered, whether escalation was required and how the final outcome was reached. Without that connected view, even well-run processes can become difficult to defend.
Comms surveillance is therefore moving from a narrow monitoring function to a core component of regulatory preparedness. It provides the first line of evidence for how potential risk was identified, assessed, and resolved. It also gives firms the foundation they need to demonstrate that supervision is not only in place, but working effectively.
In today’s regulatory environment, readiness is all about being able to prove what happened, not simply locating the information.
We've featured the best AI website builder.
This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.
The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit