Your Compliance Evidence Is Getting Better. Your Controls Aren't.
AI can now collect compliance evidence, map it to controls, identify gaps, draft policies, and write the narrative explaining how a company meets a requirement. AI didn't create the problem I want to talk about. It just makes the evidence cleaner, faster, and easier to produce.I've spent a large part of my career assessing security programs, working through compliance requirements, and helping companies fix what happens after the assessment is over. Long before AI entered the conversation, I saw the same issue over and over again. A company could show evidence that a control existed without necessarily proving that the control worked the way everyone thought it did.I don't think better evidence is a bad thing. I think we're going to see a lot more of it. The problem is what happens when we start confusing better evidence with better security.And that changes what we should be asking.What did compliance automation actually change?Tools like Vanta and Drata have improved a part of compliance that needed to improve.Anyone who has been through enough audits remembers the old process. Someone creates an evidence request list. Teams start taking screenshots. People chase control owners. Evidence gets dropped into folders. Spreadsheets track what is missing. Then everyone does it again during the next audit cycle.
.webp)




.webp)

.webp)


















.webp)






.avif)


.webp)








