The Global Compliance Control Knowledge Graph. The Deepest Regulatory Intelligence Engine in BFSI.
RegAhead's Global Compliance Control Knowledge Graph is an elastic, continuously updated network that stitches together countries, regulators, control frameworks, regulatory clauses, standards, test evidence requirements, and control-testing checklists — jurisdiction by jurisdiction, framework by framework, clause by clause.
Key takeaways
- Maps regulators, frameworks, clauses, controls, and evidence across 50+ jurisdictions.
- Built from the actual regulatory clause outward — not from a generic control library.
- Propagates regulatory changes to every affected control automatically.
- Harmonises overlapping frameworks (e.g., DORA Art. 30 ↔ RBI IT Outsourcing §5).
Built From the Regulatory Clause Outward — Not From a Generic Control Library
Most compliance platforms start with a generic control library — a static list of controls derived from frameworks like ISO 27001, NIST, or COBIT — and ask compliance teams to manually map their regulatory obligations to these generic controls. This approach produces two predictable failures: it misses jurisdiction-specific nuances (the specific evidence a RBI examiner expects versus what a NYDFS examiner expects), and it becomes obsolete the moment a regulator revises a circular.
RegAhead's Knowledge Graph is built the opposite way. It starts with regulatory clauses — the specific, actual text of regulatory obligations — and builds outward: mapping each clause to the control requirements it imposes, the evidence that satisfies those requirements, the testing methodology an auditor would apply, and the interconnections with related clauses in the same and adjacent frameworks.
From Regulator to Evidence — Eight Connected Layers
Each layer resolves into the next, so any control, evidence requirement, or checklist traces back to the exact regulatory clause that demands it — and across to every adjacent framework that shares it.
| Layer | What It Captures | Example |
|---|---|---|
| L1 Country / Jurisdiction | The sovereign jurisdiction whose law applies. | India · EU · Singapore · Hong Kong · Saudi Arabia · UK · Switzerland · USA (NYDFS) · [expanding] |
| L2 Regulator | The supervisory authority within the jurisdiction. | RBI · SEBI · IRDAI · EBA · ECB · EIOPA · MAS · HKMA · SAMA · FCA · PRA · FINMA |
| L3 Regulatory Framework | The specific direction, regulation, or standard. | IT Outsourcing Directions · DORA · TRM Guidelines · AI Act · DPDP · ISO 27001 · ISO 42001 · SOX |
| L4 Regulatory Clause | The specific Article / Section / Paragraph of the regulation. | DORA Article 30: Contractual arrangements with ICT third-party service providers |
| L5 Control Requirement | The specific compliance obligation the clause imposes. | "ICT service level descriptions including security, data protection, and availability commitments must be documented in a written agreement" |
| L6 Test Evidence | What satisfies the control. | Executed MSA containing Clause 30 requirements; SLA schedule with MTTR/MTBF targets; data processing addendum |
| L7 Control Testing Checklist | The specific audit steps an examiner would take to verify compliance evidence. | The step-by-step verification an examiner applies to the evidence set |
| L8 Interconnections | Cross-framework links between equivalent clauses. | DORA Art. 30 ↔ RBI IT Outsourcing §5 ↔ ISO 27001 A.15.1 ↔ MAS TRM §5 |
A Moat Built From Regulatory Domain Expertise — Not Software Alone
Building a compliance knowledge graph of this depth requires a combination of regulatory domain expertise, knowledge engineering, and continuous maintenance that is extremely difficult to replicate quickly. Every jurisdiction requires legal expertise in that regulatory system. Every framework requires qualified compliance professionals who understand how regulators interpret and examine against their own frameworks — not how a software engineer interprets the document.
RegAhead's Knowledge Graph is the product of WhyMinds AI's multi-year investment in regulatory domain expertise across BFSI jurisdictions, combined with continuous AI-assisted ingestion of new regulatory publications. It is the moat that makes RegAhead's regulator-first positioning defensible — not just a brand claim.
What the Knowledge Graph Enables
| Capability | What It Enables |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction-specific control mapping | Assessment templates, monitoring controls, and audit evidence requirements are pre-configured for each regulatory jurisdiction — not adapted from a generic control library. |
| Regulatory change propagation | When RBI issues a revised circular, the Knowledge Graph identifies which existing controls are affected, which evidence requirements change, and which new controls are required — automatically, without manual re-mapping. |
| Cross-framework control harmonisation | An institution complying with both RBI IT Outsourcing and DORA can see which controls satisfy both frameworks simultaneously — reducing duplication of compliance effort. |
| Audit evidence lineage | Every piece of audit evidence traces directly to the specific regulatory clause it satisfies — allowing examiners to verify compliance traceability in minutes rather than days. |
| RegIQ intelligence foundation | RegIQ's conversational answers draw on Knowledge Graph context — ensuring responses reference specific regulatory clauses and evidence requirements, not generic compliance advice. |
| Continuous expansion | The Knowledge Graph is continuously updated as regulators publish new circulars, master directions, and interpretive guidance — through a combination of AI-assisted ingestion and expert validation. |
The Knowledge Graph, Answered
Ask It a Cross-Jurisdiction Question. Watch It Trace Clause to Evidence.
Walk through how the Knowledge Graph maps your regulatory obligations to controls, evidence, and audit checklists — with a RegAhead specialist.
One graph. Every regulator, framework, clause, control, and evidence requirement — connected.