The Challenge

Most AI implementations in regulated environments encounter audit failures 6-12 months after launch. Not because of poor execution, but because of architectural decisions made before implementation that guaranteed regulatory problems later.

Organizations deploy AI systems that appear to work, pass internal reviews, and satisfy vendors' promises, then fail when regulators require evidence chains the architecture can't provide.

The gap: technical teams build what AI can do, compliance teams audit against existing frameworks, and nobody identifies the structural incompatibility until it's expensive to fix.

What EpistemIQ Provides

EpistemIQ reviews AI governance architectures before implementation to identify structural issues that will create regulatory problems. This information-theoretic approach detects epistemic drift—where AI systems' internal representations diverge from ground truth in ways that accumulate over time—before it causes compliance failures.

The assessment identifies where systems are likely to fail regulatory scrutiny: not because of compliance gaps you can fix with better documentation, but because of architectural choices that conflict with regulatory requirements and information-theoretic constraints.

You get specific guidance on what to change before you build, not a list of problems to fix after deployment.

What EpistemIQ Identifies That Others Miss

When reviewing AI implementations in regulated environments, EpistemIQ identifies three categories of structural issues most consultants miss:

Architectural incompatibility: Where organizations are configuring LLM capabilities within compliance frameworks that assume invertible processes. The approach can't meet audit requirements, not because of poor implementation, but because of information-theoretic constraints that weren't considered during architecture decisions. Compression dynamics in AI systems create irreversible information loss that conflicts with regulatory traceability requirements.

Misapplied governance structures: Where teams are deploying AI for appropriate use cases, but within oversight frameworks that prevent the technology from functioning as designed. The technology works, the governance works, but the combination creates systematic failures neither team anticipated. Information flow analysis reveals these incompatibilities before deployment.

Hidden compliance gaps: Where systems appear to meet requirements but are compressing away information that auditors will eventually demand. These gaps only become visible when you understand both how LLMs actually process information and what regulatory frameworks actually verify. Epistemic drift detection identifies where these failures will emerge.

This diagnostic capability comes from understanding information theory, compression dynamics, LLM architecture, and regulatory constraints simultaneously: a combination that allows identification of structural problems before they become expensive failures.

Where This Matters

This approach emerged from 20 years in life sciences research and compliance, where organizations repeatedly implement systems that can't survive regulatory scrutiny, not because teams lacked expertise, but because the architectural constraints and information-theoretic limitations weren't visible until too late.

Life sciences: FDA/EMA submission workflows, clinical trial oversight, post-market surveillance where AI-assisted decisions require evidence chains the current architecture can't provide and epistemic drift threatens validation.

Financial services: Model risk management frameworks, algorithmic trading oversight, SEC/FINRA reporting, AML/KYC compliance where systems generate required outputs but can't document the reasoning process auditors demand due to compression efficiency losses.

Healthcare systems: Clinical decision support, diagnostic AI implementations where patient safety requirements conflict with how the AI system actually processes information and where compression dynamics affect safety bounds.

Research institutions: IRB processes reviewing AI tools, cross-departmental governance where technical and compliance teams can't effectively communicate about system capabilities, constraints, and epistemic drift risks.

Why This Approach Works

Regulatory frameworks (NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act, FDA guidance) identify what needs to be auditable. They don't address the architectural question: how do you create audit trails when AI systems compress information in non-invertible ways?

Most implementations try to retrofit traceability onto systems that weren't designed for it. This creates documentation that satisfies internal reviews but fails external audits because the underlying information flow and compression dynamics weren't architected to preserve required evidence chains.

The alternative: architect governance systems that account for information-theoretic constraints from the start. This requires understanding what's actually possible given compression efficiency requirements, not what vendors promise or what existing frameworks assume.

EpistemIQ helps organizations make architectural decisions that prevent audit failures rather than fixing them after implementation by analyzing information flow, compression dynamics, and epistemic drift patterns before deployment.

How Engagements Work

Architecture review: Assessment of current or planned AI governance approach using information-theoretic methods to identify structural issues that will create regulatory problems and detect potential epistemic drift patterns.

Gap analysis: Documentation of where the architecture conflicts with regulatory requirements, where compression dynamics create compliance risks, and what changes prevent future failures.

Implementation guidance: Specific recommendations for architecting governance systems that maintain information flow integrity, manage compression efficiency, and survive regulatory scrutiny.

Engagements typically begin with a structured review to identify architectural risks, followed by detailed guidance on changes that prevent compliance failures. Learn more about the EpistemIQ Readiness Assessment →

Theoretical Foundation

EpistemIQ is grounded in 20+ years of research operations, risk, and compliance experience at Harvard University, combined with deep theoretical knowledge.

The theoretical foundation connecting biological persistence and machine learning alignment through informational compression is formalized in The Information-Theoretic Imperative: Compression and the Epistemic Foundations of Intelligence (arXiv:2510.25883), currently under review at a scientific journal. This framework provides the information-theoretic principles underlying epistemic drift detection and compression efficiency analysis.

EpistemIQ is patent pending. Implementation methodology is discussed under NDA.

Work Together

For architecture reviews, implementation guidance, or to discuss specific regulatory challenges:

Email: jenniferfkinne@proton.me

Connect on LinkedIn

Learn more about background and approach →