How our architecture satisfies each claimed framework.
Claim → Feature → Control mapping for auditors and legal teams.
NameONE Studios' compliance posture is substantiated not by commodity controls, but by architectural primitives.
The CCW (Custom Constellation Window) system is a governance layer that injects compliance as a property of runtime logic, not as a checklist.
Our deployment model is singular: Licensed Governance Layer. We license access to the CCW engine and its protocols. The engine deploys into the customer's sovereign environment (their cloud, their data). We provide the governance logic; they provide the execution substrate.
| Claim | CCW Feature | Technical Substantiation |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 (CC6.1, CC7.1) | Mirror Lattice Log | All governance decisions (CPN veto, lane dissent, sandbox entries) are immutably logged with timestamp, actor, and rationale. Provides demonstrable audit trail of logical controls. |
| ISO 27001 (A.12.4) | Lineage Ledger | Every output can be traced back through its deliberation steps (which lanes contributed, what data was considered). Satisfies information logging and review requirements. |
| Zero Trust | CPN Veto Gate & Per-Query Auth | No autonomous action is final without explicit CPN approval ("human signature"). Every query validates authority context against the CPN's session. Implements continuous verification. |
| Air-Gap Ready | Sovereign Deployment Model | The CCW engine can be deployed fully on-premises, with no external API dependencies post-activation. All deliberation occurs within the customer's boundary. |
| Claim | CCW Feature | Technical Substantiation |
|---|---|---|
| HIPAA §164.312 | Role-Based Access Envelope | The CPN role is the only identity with "break-glass" override authority. Access to patient-data-tagged deliberations is restricted to explicitly authorized CPN sessions. |
| 21 CFR Part 11 | Human Signature Protocol | The CPN veto/approval action is cryptographically signed and logged as the electronic signature required for any critical decision (e.g., diagnostic support output). |
| HITECH | Breach Simulation via Catfish | Catfish lane continuously stress-tests consensus to surface unintended data inference or leakage—a proactive security assessment mechanism. |
| Joint Commission | Deliberation Transparency | For any care-related recommendation, the full deliberation transcript can be produced, showing multi-disciplinary review (via lanes) before decision. |
| Claim | CCW Feature | Technical Substantiation |
|---|---|---|
| SOX §302 | CPN Attestation Loop | Before any financial-model output is used, CPN must affirmatively approve. This management certification is built into the workflow, not added afterward. |
| OCC SR 11-7 | Model Risk Governance | Each AI lane's "vote" and confidence score is recorded. Catfish dissent forces explicit consideration of model limitations and uncertainty. |
| CFPB UDAAP | Bias Stress-Test (Sandbox) | Sandbox scenarios can run adversarial prompts to detect unfair or deceptive output patterns before production use—preventive unfair practice testing. |
| FINRA Rule 3110 | Supervision-by-Design | Every lane's contribution and the CPN's final approval are logged and retained, satisfying supervisory review and recordkeeping for communications. |
| Claim | CCW Feature | Technical Substantiation |
|---|---|---|
| FedRAMP (AC-3) | Mandatory Two-Person Rule | For high-impact decisions, the system can be configured to require concurrent approval from both a human CPN and a secondary verification lane. |
| FISMA (RA-5) | Continuous Drift Scanning | The Drift Monitor continuously assesses lane consensus. High drift triggers a Catfish challenge—an automated vulnerability scan for groupthink. |
| Section 508 | Accessible Audit Trail | The Mirror Lattice log can be output in structured (JSON) or natural language formats, compatible with screen readers and assistive tech for auditors. |
| AI Executive Order §4 | Red-Teaming Protocol | The Sandbox is a built-in red-teaming environment where adversarial scenarios (bias, security, safety) are routinely executed against the live system. |
| Claim | CCW Feature | Technical Substantiation |
|---|---|---|
| Model Rule 1.1 | Competence via Multi-Lane Review | Output is not from a single AI but from a deliberation of specialized "expert" lanes (ethics, logic, risk, etc.), simulating competent, thorough review. |
| FRCP 26 | Discovery-Ready Lineage | The full decision lineage for any output can be exported as a legally admissible process log, showing the basis for any conclusion. |
| State Bar Rules | Client Confidentiality Enforced | Each client matter can be instantiated as a separate "Constellation Instance" with its own CPN and encrypted deliberation logs, ensuring matter isolation. |
| SOC 2 | Logical Access & Change Control | The CPN is the only role that can alter governance rules (lane instructions, drift thresholds). All changes are logged and require re-authentication. |
| Claim | CCW Feature | Technical Substantiation |
|---|---|---|
| GDPR Art. 22 | Human-in-the-Loop Guarantee | The CPN veto is a right to human intervention for any automated decision that could have legal or similarly significant effect. |
| EU AI Act (High-Risk) | Risk Management System | The Sandbox, Drift Monitor, and Catfish lanes constitute an internal continuous risk management system for the AI's operation. |
| SOC 2 & ISO 27001 | Cross-Cutting Controls | Same controls as Security section apply; the governance layer provides cross-cutting compliance for any domain it oversees. |
Why compliance travels with the software
CCW engine container deployed to customer's VPC. No NameONE data storage. Your infrastructure, your control.
All prompts, deliberations, and logs remain within customer boundary. We never possess customer data.
We provide the governance protocols (lane definitions, FGN rules, veto gates). The customer operates them.
Because compliance is achieved via logical and process controls embedded in the CCW engine, the compliance posture travels with the licensed software.
Transparency about shared responsibilities
The customer is responsible for implementing the governance layer correctly (e.g., ensuring CPN actors are properly authorized, maintaining session security).
Our substantiation covers the governance layer's operation. Underlying AI models (e.g., Claude, GPT) are the customer's responsibility to procure compliant versions.
We provide the architecture and logs; the customer's auditor must verify they are operated as designed.
NameONE Studios' compliance is not retrofitted. It is architecturally inherent. The CCW system turns governance—access control, audit trails, human oversight, risk scanning—into first-class runtime operations.
This document is the technical blueprint behind every "compliance-ready" claim on this site.
Our team can walk through specific control mappings with your compliance officers.