Trigger reviews on change, not on date
A review prompted by a change to a cited provision or an edit to an AI use case has a stated reason. A review prompted only by the calendar is easier to defer.
Cadence
An assessment records the position on its filing date.
An assessment is a snapshot of a legal position. The law changes, and so do AI use cases, each one a tool used for one purpose. Neither change is announced. The question is how you learn that an assessment is out of date.
Four ways a filed assessment stops being true
They differ, and only one is a change in the law.
Monitoring changes in the law addresses only the first of the four.
01
The provision moved
The provision has been amended, renumbered or superseded, or has commenced on a date that has now passed. A citation-level watch can detect this, provided you know which of your documents cited the provision that changed.
02
The AI use case moved
The same tool now serves a second purpose, has been extended to a fourth state or draws on a new data source. The law has not changed. The assessment now describes a system that no longer exists in that form.
03
The vendor moved
Examples are a rewritten privacy policy, a new sub-processor or a changed retention default. Conclusions about the vendor that were reasonable when written are now unverified.
04
The interpretation moved
The text of the provision is unchanged, but the regulator has published guidance that reads it differently. This change is hard to detect, and a regulator may raise it in an inquiry.
What is monitored today. LegisGate monitors citation changes on linked assessments, changes to vendor privacy policies and the publication of official templates. Sub-processor lists, data-processing agreements and training-policy pages are on the roadmap and are not yet monitored. Changes to an AI use case and shifts in interpretation cannot be detected automatically, and LegisGate does not claim to detect them.
Setting a review cadence
Calendar reviews have a structural weakness.
An annual review assumes risk arises on a schedule. It arises when a department starts using an existing tool for a new purpose.
Re-run the determination
Where the answer comes from fixed rules, re-running the determination, the list of laws that apply to the AI use case with each cited to the provision, against the current Meridian is more reliable than re-reading last year’s document, and takes less effort.
Record the no-change outcome
A review that found nothing had changed is a recorded result with a date. Without the record, it cannot be told apart from a review that never took place.
A deliberate design decision
Issued documents do not silently update.
When the Meridian is updated, documents you have already received stay exactly as issued. A document that changed itself after circulation would be worse than an out-of-date one, because you could not tell which version your board approved.
LegisGate tells you which documents depended on the provisions that changed, and you decide whether to regenerate them.
Monitoring is included with every AI use case.
Identify what is out of date
Begin with your oldest assessment.
Add the same AI use case to your inventory and compare what your workspace shows with the document on file. The differences are the updates that have accumulated since it was filed. From then on, monitoring tells you which AI use cases a change in regulation affects. Your first five AI use cases are free.