Governance Readiness
One program for the reviews regulated financial services now face: AI governance aligned to MISMO FRAME for mortgage and the NAIC AI Model Bulletin for insurance, SOC 2 compliance support, and readiness for CCPA and state privacy laws — with the evidence maintained as part of daily operations.
Why now
If AI or ML touches underwriting, claims, pricing, documents, servicing, fraud or customer outreach anywhere in your stack, the obligation is live today — and it reaches the platforms you buy from, not just the ones you built.
Freddie Mac · in force 3 March 2026
Applies wherever AI or ML appears. Requires senior-management approval, annual policy review, monitoring, audits, bias and security checks, and segregation of duties.
Fannie Mae · in force 6 August 2026
Not limited to underwriting, and draws no distinction between a system a lender built and one it bought — so lenders now have to answer for their vendors' AI.
Insurance · NAIC
Adopted by a majority of states, the bulletin expects insurers to maintain a written AI program — governance, risk management, internal controls and oversight of third-party AI — and to be able to show regulators how AI-supported decisions are made and tested.
01 · AI governance for mortgage
The Framework for Responsible AI in the Mortgage Ecosystem gives lenders a shared shape for the work: an AI system inventory, a governance policy and a risk assessment. We produce the record that maps to it — an implementation mapping, not a certification.
Every AI and ML system — built or bought — recorded with its purpose, owner, data and risk tier, and kept current as systems change.
Each governance control linked to the evidence that it operates, so a reviewer follows a line rather than a folder.
Risk tiering, intended use and limitations documented for each system, with the decision paths that stay deterministic called out.
Test results, bias and fairness checks and their thresholds — fed directly by LLM Assurance where AI is in play.
The signals agreed for each system, who watches them, and what happened when one moved.
Model, prompt, rule and source changes recorded with who approved them — generated from what happened, not reconstructed.
01 · AI governance for insurers
For carriers and insurtechs, the same inventory, controls and evidence are organized around the NAIC bulletin's expectations and the state requirements that build on it.
Governance, accountability and risk-management controls for AI systems across underwriting, pricing, claims and fraud, documented and kept current.
Testing and monitoring of AI-supported decisions for accuracy and unfair discrimination, with the results retained as evidence.
Due diligence, contract terms and ongoing monitoring for AI systems and data acquired from vendors — the area regulators most often ask about.
State requirements vary, and some states add their own rules on AI and external data. Applicability is confirmed with your compliance team and counsel.
02 · SOC 2
We help you design, run and evidence SOC 2 controls so your auditor examines working controls, not a document set. Your independent CPA firm performs the examination and issues the report.
Role-based access, encryption in transit and at rest, audit trails, segregation of duties, change management, backup and disaster recovery — implemented in your environment as engineering, not described in a policy binder.
Access reviews, change approvals, incident records and monitoring output captured continuously — which is what a Type II period actually tests.
A gap assessment against the Trust Services Criteria you are reporting on, a remediation plan, and a dry run of the evidence requests you will receive.
As the engineering department for a risk-intelligence customer, we built the platform, engineered the compliance program into it and stood with them through the audit — SOC 2 Type II with zero findings. Read the outcome →
03 · Data privacy
Mortgage and insurance data sit under several regimes at once. Much of it is covered by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which the CCPA partly exempts — so the work starts with knowing which data falls where, and which state laws reach the rest.
Where personal information is collected, stored and shared — and which law governs each category, including marketing, website and employee data.
Access, deletion, correction and opt-out requests received, verified, fulfilled and logged within the required timelines.
Retention schedules enforced in the systems themselves, so data is kept as long as required and no longer.
How it works
The same evidence serves all three reviews, so the work is done once and kept current.
Assess
Map where you stand against FRAME, SOC 2 criteria and the privacy laws that apply to your data.
Close the gaps
Design and implement the controls, policies and workflows that are missing — in your systems.
Evidence as you work
Inventory, control evidence and change history produced from what actually happened.
Support the review
Stand with your team through the audit, the examination or the partner due-diligence request.
Straight answers
FRAME alignment is an implementation mapping. MISMO does not certify vendors through us, and we do not imply its endorsement.
A SOC 2 report is issued by an independent CPA firm for a defined system and period. We prepare you for it and support you through it.
Covered systems, workflows and requirements are named up front, with milestones — so everyone knows exactly what "ready" means.
Questions buyers ask
One program covering AI governance aligned to MISMO FRAME for mortgage and the NAIC AI Model Bulletin for insurance, SOC 2 compliance support, and readiness for CCPA and state privacy laws, with the evidence maintained as part of daily operations.
No. FRAME alignment is an implementation mapping, not a certification, and MISMO does not certify vendors through Reslt AI. A SOC 2 report is issued by an independent CPA firm; Reslt AI prepares you for the examination and supports you through it.
Freddie Mac Bulletin 2025-16 (in force 3 March 2026) and Fannie Mae Lender Letter LL-2026-04 (in force 6 August 2026) require oversight of AI wherever it appears, and Fannie Mae's letter covers systems a lender bought as well as built.
Insurers are expected to maintain a written AI program covering governance, risk management, internal controls and oversight of third-party AI, and to show regulators how AI-supported decisions are made and tested. State requirements vary.
Data inventory and mapping, consumer-rights request workflows, and retention enforced in the systems themselves. This is readiness support, not legal advice; your counsel decides how the law applies to your business.
Where to start
A GSE or state insurance AI inquiry, a SOC 2 request from a buyer, or a privacy question from counsel. We will show you where you stand and what it takes to close the gap.
Discuss Governance ReadinessTesting the AI itself? See LLM Assurance →
