Compliance evidence gathering
Have the model map regulatory or contractual requirements to the test evidence that exists for them, and list where evidence is missing, before an audit does.
How it works
Regulated work needs proof that specific requirements were tested, which means tracing each requirement to tests, results and approvals. The model is given the requirement set — a standard's clauses, a contract's acceptance criteria, internal policy — and the available evidence: test cases, run results, review records, traceability data. It proposes a mapping, assembles references to the evidence for each requirement, and flags requirements with no evidence, evidence that is out of date, and tests that claim to cover a requirement without plausibly checking it. A person reviews the mapping before it goes into any formal submission.
When to use it
Preparing for audits or certification; regulated domains such as medical, finance and public sector; contracts with formal acceptance; and organisations whose traceability is kept partly in documents and partly in tools.
Limitations
The model interprets regulatory text, and its interpretation is not authoritative; what a clause requires is a matter for the organisation's compliance experts and, ultimately, the regulator. A plausible-looking mapping can overstate coverage, which is worse in an audit than an admitted gap. Evidence it can't reach doesn't exist as far as it knows.
Watch for
A clause on deleting personal data is mapped to a test called “data retention” that was skipped in the last release run; the link works, so the gap stays hidden. For each mapping, check the run is current, actually executed, and the test checks the clause.
What you still own
The interpretation of the requirements, every claim made to an auditor, and the sign-off.
Cite this
Qlarify Labs. (2026). Compliance evidence gathering. Retrieved from https://labs.qlarify.fi/ai-in-testing/compliance-evidence-gathering