|
| 1 | +# Enterprise AGI/ASI Governance Implementation Roadmap & Master Reference (2026–2035) |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +## Document Intent |
| 4 | +This reference is a regulator-ready implementation blueprint for Fortune 500, Global 2000, and G‑SIFIs implementing high-impact AGI/ASI capabilities between **2026 and 2035**. |
| 5 | + |
| 6 | +It is designed to be directly operationalized through policy-as-code, formal specification, supervisory evidence pipelines, and cross-jurisdiction control mapping. |
| 7 | + |
| 8 | +> **Important**: This document is an implementation reference, not legal advice. Local counsel and supervisory guidance should validate jurisdiction-specific obligations. |
| 9 | +
|
| 10 | +--- |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +## 1) Reference Architecture and Stack Baseline |
| 13 | + |
| 14 | +### 1.1 Stack Components (Normative Baseline) |
| 15 | +- **Sentinel AI Governance Stack v2.4**: policy decision, runtime enforcement, evidence signing, control orchestration. |
| 16 | +- **WorkflowAI Pro**: workflow orchestration, human-in-the-loop gates, delegation constraints. |
| 17 | +- **G-Stack**: governance data plane, risk analytics, dossier assembly. |
| 18 | +- **SIP v2.4**: regulator interface protocol (APIs, schema contracts, signed supervisory exchange). |
| 19 | + |
| 20 | +### 1.2 Five-Zone Control Topology |
| 21 | +1. **Fiduciary Zone**: board-level approvals, risk appetite, accountability (SMCR-like named owners). |
| 22 | +2. **Policy Zone**: machine-enforced policies (OPA/Rego), change control, exception governance. |
| 23 | +3. **Verification Zone**: TLA+ invariants, conformance tests, release gates. |
| 24 | +4. **Runtime Zone**: Omni-Sentinel containment, ASAs, intervention automations. |
| 25 | +5. **Supervisory Zone**: regulator APIs, OSCAL bundles, ARRE/VAR evidence delivery. |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +### 1.3 Mandatory Cross-Cutting Controls |
| 28 | +- Cryptographic evidence immutability. |
| 29 | +- Segregation of duty: model builders cannot unilaterally alter runtime policy. |
| 30 | +- Deny-by-default on high-impact autonomous actions. |
| 31 | +- Jurisdiction-aware localization for controls, logging, and retention. |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +--- |
| 34 | + |
| 35 | +## 2) Phased Roadmap (2026–2030) + Extension (2031–2035) |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +## Phase 0 — Foundation (Q3 2026 to Q4 2026) |
| 38 | +**Target**: Establish governance constitution and inventory completeness. |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +**Must-Ship Artifacts** |
| 41 | +- AI constitution and fiduciary governance charter. |
| 42 | +- Enterprise model/agent inventory with impact tiering (T0–T4). |
| 43 | +- Control baseline profile combining NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, SR 11-7 principles. |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +**Exit Criteria** |
| 46 | +- >95% model inventory coverage. |
| 47 | +- 100% T0/T1 systems mapped to named control owners. |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +## Phase 1 — Policy/Specification Industrialization (2027) |
| 50 | +**Target**: Convert policy narratives into executable controls and verified invariants. |
| 51 | + |
| 52 | +**Must-Ship Artifacts** |
| 53 | +- Rego policy packs by jurisdiction and risk tier. |
| 54 | +- TLA+ specifications for critical agent workflows. |
| 55 | +- Annex IV-ready dossier templates with machine-fillable fields. |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | +**Exit Criteria** |
| 58 | +- 100% T0/T1 deployments gated by policy checks. |
| 59 | +- Spec-to-policy traceability map complete for all critical paths. |
| 60 | + |
| 61 | +## Phase 2 — Runtime Containment and Perpetual Assurance (2028) |
| 62 | +**Target**: Operate AGI containment and SOC-grade monitoring at enterprise scale. |
| 63 | + |
| 64 | +**Must-Ship Artifacts** |
| 65 | +- Omni-Sentinel containment rings in enforce mode. |
| 66 | +- GAI-SOC telemetry fabric with signed event lineage. |
| 67 | +- Red Dawn simulation program (quarterly). |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +**Exit Criteria** |
| 70 | +- MTTC for critical governance breach < 90s. |
| 71 | +- 24/7 telemetry for all T0/T1 systems. |
| 72 | + |
| 73 | +## Phase 3 — Prudential Stress Regime (2029) |
| 74 | +**Target**: Basel-style AI stress testing integrated with risk appetite and buffers. |
| 75 | + |
| 76 | +**Must-Ship Artifacts** |
| 77 | +- G‑SRI methodology and scorecards. |
| 78 | +- BBOM perpetual assurance dashboard. |
| 79 | +- Annual supervisory stress package and board response protocol. |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +**Exit Criteria** |
| 82 | +- Stress program cycles completed within 30 business days. |
| 83 | +- No unremediated critical findings past quarter close. |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +## Phase 4 — Supervisory Interoperability (2030) |
| 86 | +**Target**: API-first supervision and cross-border evidence portability. |
| 87 | + |
| 88 | +**Must-Ship Artifacts** |
| 89 | +- SIP v2.4 regulator APIs (evidence, incidents, stress, policy). |
| 90 | +- OSCAL exports with ARRE + VAR packages. |
| 91 | +- zk-SNARK compliance proof delivery for privacy-preserving attestations. |
| 92 | + |
| 93 | +**Exit Criteria** |
| 94 | +- >95% recurring supervisory requests fulfilled via API. |
| 95 | +- Manual dossier assembly reduced below 5% of volume. |
| 96 | + |
| 97 | +## 2031–2035 Extension |
| 98 | +- 2031–2032: dynamic risk budgets + automated guardrail retuning under formal constraints. |
| 99 | +- 2033: shared utility model for systemic incident intelligence. |
| 100 | +- 2034: coordinated multi-regulator simulation sandboxes. |
| 101 | +- 2035: near-real-time cross-border prudential AI supervision. |
| 102 | + |
| 103 | +--- |
| 104 | + |
| 105 | +## 3) AGI/ASI Technical Governance Architecture |
| 106 | + |
| 107 | +### 3.1 Omni-Sentinel Containment |
| 108 | +- **Ring 0**: compute and execution kernel constraints. |
| 109 | +- **Ring 1**: runtime policy enforcement for tool use and capability exposure. |
| 110 | +- **Ring 2**: workflow-level dual control and transaction gates. |
| 111 | +- **Ring 3**: enterprise blast-radius limits (DLP/fraud/legal escalation). |
| 112 | + |
| 113 | +### 3.2 AGI Containment Labs |
| 114 | +- Air-gapped adversarial simulation clusters. |
| 115 | +- Digital twins for critical finance/operations pathways. |
| 116 | +- Reproducible red-team corpora and scenario registries. |
| 117 | + |
| 118 | +### 3.3 GAI-SOC |
| 119 | +- Canonical telemetry schema: prompt lineage, policy decision, tool effect, intervention state. |
| 120 | +- Correlation for autonomy drift, collusion indicators, and policy evasion attempts. |
| 121 | +- Signed intervention trail for post-incident supervisory replay. |
| 122 | + |
| 123 | +### 3.4 Red Dawn Simulations |
| 124 | +- Quarterly severe-but-plausible exercises across cyber/model/operational axes. |
| 125 | +- Mandatory after-action governance remediation, tracked to closure SLAs. |
| 126 | + |
| 127 | +### 3.5 Autonomous Supervisory Agents (ASAs) |
| 128 | +- **Compliance ASA**: statutory and policy constraint checks. |
| 129 | +- **Risk ASA**: dynamic risk throttles and exposure caps. |
| 130 | +- **Fiduciary ASA**: customer impact safeguards and outcome fairness checks. |
| 131 | + |
| 132 | +All ASAs are subordinate to human-ratified constitutional policy with immutable priority ordering. |
| 133 | + |
| 134 | +--- |
| 135 | + |
| 136 | +## 4) Formal Verification and Policy-as-Code Conformance |
| 137 | + |
| 138 | +### 4.1 TLA+ Verification Objectives |
| 139 | +Critical invariants include: |
| 140 | +1. No irreversible external actuation without approved path. |
| 141 | +2. No unauthorized privilege transition across rings. |
| 142 | +3. No bypass of human checkpoint for designated high-impact actions. |
| 143 | + |
| 144 | +### 4.2 OPA/Rego Enforcement Objectives |
| 145 | +- Jurisdiction-aware modules with deterministic reason codes. |
| 146 | +- Deny-by-default for missing evidence or missing approvals. |
| 147 | +- Explicit exception handling with expiry and owner attribution. |
| 148 | + |
| 149 | +### 4.3 CI/CD Gate (Required) |
| 150 | +1. TLA+ lint/model-check pass. |
| 151 | +2. Rego unit + scenario test pass. |
| 152 | +3. Spec-vs-runtime conformance test pass. |
| 153 | +4. Artifact signing and evidence registration. |
| 154 | +5. Change approval by independent control owner. |
| 155 | + |
| 156 | +### 4.4 Conformance Chain |
| 157 | +`spec hash -> policy hash -> build attestation -> deploy attestation -> runtime decision hash -> dossier evidence` |
| 158 | + |
| 159 | +--- |
| 160 | + |
| 161 | +## 5) Basel-Style AI Stress Testing (G‑SRI + BBOM) |
| 162 | + |
| 163 | +### 5.1 G-SRI Components |
| 164 | +- Interconnectedness. |
| 165 | +- Substitutability. |
| 166 | +- Complexity and autonomy depth. |
| 167 | +- Cross-border spillover potential. |
| 168 | +- Concentration across providers and compute. |
| 169 | + |
| 170 | +### 5.2 Required Scenario Families |
| 171 | +- Multi-agent collusion and strategic manipulation. |
| 172 | +- Safety classifier false-negative spike during crisis load. |
| 173 | +- Policy engine latency and cascading gate failures. |
| 174 | +- Compute region outage with policy-localization mismatch. |
| 175 | + |
| 176 | +### 5.3 BBOM Perpetual Assurance |
| 177 | +- Continuous behavior indicators with threshold-triggered escalation ladders. |
| 178 | +- Board and regulator reporting cadence fed from signed telemetry and stress outputs. |
| 179 | + |
| 180 | +--- |
| 181 | + |
| 182 | +## 6) Regulator-Grade Dossier Factory (OSCAL + ARRE + VAR) |
| 183 | + |
| 184 | +### 6.1 ARRE (AI Risk & Resilience Evidence) |
| 185 | +Minimum sections: |
| 186 | +- Governance and accountability. |
| 187 | +- Lifecycle controls and test evidence. |
| 188 | +- Runtime containment and incidents. |
| 189 | +- Stress results and residual risk. |
| 190 | +- Remediation commitments and closure status. |
| 191 | + |
| 192 | +### 6.2 VAR (Validation Attestation Record) |
| 193 | +Minimum sections: |
| 194 | +- Independent validation opinion. |
| 195 | +- Scope and coverage statement. |
| 196 | +- Limitations/exceptions. |
| 197 | +- Time-bound mitigation commitments. |
| 198 | + |
| 199 | +### 6.3 OSCAL Annexes |
| 200 | +- Component definitions, control implementations, assessment results, and plans of action. |
| 201 | +- Mappable references to Annex IV technical documentation fields. |
| 202 | + |
| 203 | +--- |
| 204 | + |
| 205 | +## 7) Privacy-Preserving Supervisory Assurance (zk-SNARKs) |
| 206 | + |
| 207 | +Use zk proofs to demonstrate compliance without disclosing sensitive model internals or customer data. |
| 208 | + |
| 209 | +Required proof families: |
| 210 | +- Threshold compliance at decision time. |
| 211 | +- Policy version conformance by jurisdiction. |
| 212 | +- Containment response within mandated SLA. |
| 213 | + |
| 214 | +--- |
| 215 | + |
| 216 | +## 8) Regulator-Facing APIs and Dashboards (SIP v2.4) |
| 217 | + |
| 218 | +### 8.1 APIs |
| 219 | +- **Evidence API**: signed artifacts and lineage proofs. |
| 220 | +- **Incident API**: timeline, impact, containment, remediation. |
| 221 | +- **Stress API**: scenario catalog, outputs, trend deltas. |
| 222 | +- **Policy API**: active rules, versions, exceptions. |
| 223 | + |
| 224 | +### 8.2 Dashboard Requirements |
| 225 | +- Jurisdictional heatmaps. |
| 226 | +- Early warning indicators and breach forecasts. |
| 227 | +- Drill-through from KPI to signed raw evidence. |
| 228 | + |
| 229 | +--- |
| 230 | + |
| 231 | +## 9) Regulatory Mapping Playbooks (Control Objectives) |
| 232 | + |
| 233 | +### EU AI Act (Annex IV, Articles 48, 71, 72) |
| 234 | +- Annex IV dossier completeness and traceability automation. |
| 235 | +- Supervisory cooperation and incident escalation integration. |
| 236 | +- Penalty-exposure readiness workflow with legal/compliance triage. |
| 237 | + |
| 238 | +### NIST AI RMF 1.0 / AI 600-1 |
| 239 | +- GOVERN-MAP-MEASURE-MANAGE mapped to executable control objectives. |
| 240 | +- Sector profile overlays and periodic maturity re-baselining. |
| 241 | + |
| 242 | +### ISO/IEC 42001 AIMS |
| 243 | +- Management system alignment across policy, competence, operation, evaluation, improvement. |
| 244 | + |
| 245 | +### MAS FEAT + MAS AI Guidelines |
| 246 | +- Fairness/transparency/accountability gates embedded in product lifecycle. |
| 247 | + |
| 248 | +### Basel III/IV, SR 11-7, SR 26-2 |
| 249 | +- Model risk governance, validation independence, issue governance discipline. |
| 250 | + |
| 251 | +### DORA, NIS2, FCA, UK SMCR/Consumer Duty |
| 252 | +- Operational resilience, third-party risk, accountability regime mapping, customer outcome controls. |
| 253 | + |
| 254 | +### HKMA Fintech 2030 + ICGC Compute Governance |
| 255 | +- Cross-border compute attestation and concentration-risk reporting. |
| 256 | + |
| 257 | +--- |
| 258 | + |
| 259 | +## 10) Implementation Checklist (First 180 Days) |
| 260 | + |
| 261 | +1. Appoint named AI accountable executives and control owners. |
| 262 | +2. Stand up governance PMO and change approval board. |
| 263 | +3. Onboard T0/T1 systems to containment + telemetry. |
| 264 | +4. Deploy initial Rego packs and CI/CD gate. |
| 265 | +5. Formalize top-10 TLA+ invariants for critical workflows. |
| 266 | +6. Execute first Red Dawn simulation and close findings. |
| 267 | +7. Produce first Annex IV/OSCAL ARRE+VAR packet. |
| 268 | +8. Publish first G‑SRI baseline and BBOM dashboard. |
| 269 | + |
| 270 | +--- |
| 271 | + |
| 272 | +## 11) Quantitative KPI Targets |
| 273 | +- Policy decision latency P95 < 50ms. |
| 274 | +- Unauthorized critical autonomous actions = 0 per quarter. |
| 275 | +- Spec-to-runtime conformance > 99.5%. |
| 276 | +- T0/T1 pre-deployment verification coverage = 100%. |
| 277 | +- Severe incident containment SLA adherence > 99%. |
| 278 | +- On-demand supervisory packet generation < 72 hours. |
0 commit comments