How regulated businesses connect the way they are governed to the way they run.
Articles and papers on process context: regulatory evidence, lineage into code, and what agentic processes need from the business they run in.
Explore insightsThought pieces
Context Is Not a Thing. It's a Point of View.
One client, one day and five different exposure figures show why context only works when the intent behind a number travels with it.
Context, Not Just Models
Why AI in regulatory processes needs process context, and how it puts the data governance investment an institution already holds to work.
The Board's Blind Spot
A board briefing on the gap between what the board believes is happening in the enterprise and what is actually happening.
Quick reads
Reconcile only when the same question gives two different numbers
Golden-source programmes assume one true number is waiting to be found. There isn't. The number depends on the question, so the question has to travel with it.
Read the article →The code behind a regulatory figure should be something the business can question
The business owns the regulatory outcome but rarely built the systems that produce it. Joining the code to the process gives accountable people a view they can interrogate.
Your data says what happened. Your catalogue says why. The process says how.
Entity and transaction data give the what and the when. Catalogues and policies give the why. The how, the process that turns a rule into a reported figure, is the context agents need.
Know what a change will touch before you make it
Mapping business terms and rules across code repositories lets a change be traced across repositories, data and manual steps before a line is committed.
Context needs an objective, and only a process has one
Catalogues describe things. A process has an objective, an order and an output that gets examined, which is why context becomes usable at the level of the process.
Your data governance investment can do operational work
Banks and insurers already hold the definitions, lineage and ownership their processes depend on. The missing step is joining that estate to the process as it actually runs.
Regulatory reporting is a process, not a template
The template is only the endpoint. Supervisors ask how each number was produced, and the answer sits in the process behind it.
Agents remove the human interpreter, not the obligation
In every regulatory process someone quietly supplies the missing context. An agent can only do the same if that knowledge is captured as part of the process.
Cell-level lineage is the difference between explanation and proof
For risk figures, IFRS 17 disclosures and Solvency II provisions, the evidence sits at the level of the value, and the transformations usually sit in code.
Process mining shows what happened. Process context shows how it should run.
Event logs show the path work took. Process context adds the rules inside the code, the judgements in spreadsheets, and whether either matches policy.
Evidence should be produced by design, not reconstructed under pressure
Most regulatory evidence is assembled after the question arrives. Held as process context, it is there before anyone asks.
IFRS 17 needs judgement lineage, not another close checklist
IFRS 17 depends on traceable judgement: assumptions, methodology versions, CSM roll-forwards and the manual steps between actuarial and finance.
Which number matters most to you?
Tell us the number and we will expose the process context on which it is built: the objective it serves, and the code, data, spreadsheets and people that produce it.
Request a demo