Certified: The ISACA AAIR Audio Course

In this episode, we are going to make a complicated sounding topic feel manageable: dealing with regulators and regulatory expectations around AI without getting trapped in fear or unrealistic promises. Beginners often imagine regulators as people who want to block technology, or they imagine regulation as a strict rulebook that tells you exactly what to do. In real life, regulatory expectations are often a mix of formal requirements, industry guidance, and common sense principles about safety, fairness, privacy, and accountability. The challenge is that AI changes quickly, while laws and rules can take time to catch up, so organizations must act responsibly even when the boundaries are not perfectly clear. Staying aligned means building habits that regulators recognize as due care, while avoiding language that sounds like you guarantee perfection. By the end, you should understand how to think about regulatory alignment, how overpromising creates risk, and how to communicate responsibly when expectations are evolving.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

A good starting point is to understand what regulators are trying to achieve, because that helps you predict what they will care about even when the exact rule wording differs by location. Regulators generally focus on protecting people, markets, and public trust, which includes preventing harm, preventing deception, and ensuring organizations are accountable for the systems they deploy. In AI, this often translates into expectations about privacy, nondiscrimination, safety, transparency, and the ability to explain decisions that affect individuals. Regulators also care about whether an organization can demonstrate control, meaning it knows what systems it has, what they do, and how risks are managed. They rarely expect zero risk, because that is unrealistic, but they do expect that risks are identified, prioritized, and addressed in a way that matches the potential impact. If you keep that purpose in mind, regulatory alignment feels less like guessing and more like applying stable principles.

Another key idea is the difference between law, regulation, and guidance, because people often mix these together. Laws are passed by legislative bodies and set broad obligations and rights. Regulations are detailed rules created by agencies that implement laws, often with specific requirements and enforcement mechanisms. Guidance includes interpretations, best practices, and frameworks that may not be legally binding on their own but can influence what regulators expect as reasonable behavior. In fast moving areas like AI, guidance can change more quickly than laws, and organizations often rely on it to shape their programs. The risk for beginners is treating guidance as optional marketing material rather than as a signal of what oversight bodies will look for. A mature approach is to treat guidance as a directional map, while ensuring you meet the actual binding requirements that apply to your industry and region.

To stay aligned, organizations need a consistent way to answer basic questions regulators tend to ask, regardless of the exact framework. What is the system, what is it used for, and who is affected by it. What data does it use, and how is that data protected and governed. What risks were identified, and what controls were put in place to reduce those risks. How do you monitor the system over time, and how do you respond when something goes wrong. Who is accountable, and how does leadership oversee the program. Notice that these questions are about governance and evidence, not about magic technical guarantees. If you can answer these questions clearly, you are much closer to regulatory alignment than a team that claims its AI is safe but cannot show how it knows that.

Overpromising is one of the biggest traps when organizations try to sound aligned, because it creates a gap between what you say and what you can prove. Overpromising can happen in external statements, like claims to customers that AI outputs are always accurate or unbiased. It can also happen in internal compliance statements, like declaring a system is fully compliant when you have not validated key assumptions. The moment a problem occurs, the promise becomes evidence against you, because it suggests you misrepresented reality. Regulators often treat misleading statements as a serious issue, because they undermine trust and can harm people who relied on those claims. A safer approach is to be precise about what you do, what you measure, and what limitations exist. Precision builds credibility, while broad promises create risk.

A practical way to avoid overpromising is to use a concept called defensible transparency, meaning you communicate in a way that is honest, measured, and supported by evidence you can provide. For example, instead of saying an AI system makes fair decisions, you might say the organization evaluates the system for unfair impact using defined methods and reviews results regularly. Instead of saying the system never exposes sensitive data, you might say access is restricted, sensitive data handling rules are in place, and monitoring is used to detect and respond to suspected exposure. This style of language focuses on process and control rather than perfection. It also aligns with how regulators think, because they often look for whether you followed reasonable steps and whether you can show your work. Defensible transparency is not a trick; it is a discipline that keeps statements aligned with reality.

Another beginner friendly strategy is to build your governance program around core principles that appear across many regulatory approaches. One principle is accountability, meaning a named owner is responsible for the system and its risk posture. Another principle is traceability, meaning you can reconstruct decisions and understand what changed over time. Another principle is proportionality, meaning the strength of controls matches the potential harm, so high impact uses get stronger oversight. Another principle is human oversight, meaning humans retain meaningful responsibility, especially when AI influences consequential decisions. Another principle is privacy and security by design, meaning data protection is built in from the start rather than added after an incident. When your program reflects these principles, it remains aligned even when specific rules shift, because the underlying direction stays consistent.

It also helps to understand the idea of regulatory posture, which is the organization’s overall stance toward compliance and risk. A defensive posture focuses on avoiding trouble, sometimes by saying as little as possible and doing the minimum. A proactive posture focuses on building strong controls and documenting decisions, even when requirements are still emerging. Proactive does not mean reckless, and it does not mean volunteering unnecessary information; it means preparing evidence, building governance, and engaging responsibly. Regulators often respond better to organizations that demonstrate maturity, because maturity suggests future harms are less likely. For beginners, the key lesson is that posture is reflected in habits, such as how you document decisions, how you handle incidents, and how you communicate limitations. A proactive posture reduces long term risk, even if it requires more discipline upfront.

Because AI often involves third parties, another part of staying aligned is understanding how regulatory expectations apply through the supply chain. If you rely on a vendor model, regulators may still expect you to manage risk as the deploying organization, because you are the one putting the system in front of people. That means you need a way to evaluate vendor claims, understand data handling, and set requirements for transparency and incident support. It also means you should not repeat vendor marketing language as if it is guaranteed truth, because you may not be able to prove it. A mature approach is to treat vendor information as inputs into your risk assessment, not as a substitute for one. This is not about distrusting vendors, it is about recognizing accountability, because regulators rarely accept the excuse that a third party caused the harm. The deploying organization is expected to do due diligence and maintain oversight.

Communication with regulators, auditors, or internal compliance teams also requires careful framing so you stay aligned without making commitments you cannot meet. A helpful way to think about this is to separate commitments into three types: what you do now, what you plan to improve, and what you are still evaluating. What you do now should be stated clearly and backed by evidence, like policies, logs, review records, or monitoring reports. What you plan to improve should be stated as a roadmap with priorities and timelines that are realistic, not as immediate guarantees. What you are evaluating should be stated as an open item with a clear owner and a clear plan to resolve it. This approach shows maturity because it demonstrates control over both current state and future state. It also reduces overpromising because you are not pretending everything is finished when it is not.

Another important piece is how you handle gray areas, because AI regulation often includes concepts that require judgment rather than simple checkboxes. For example, what counts as meaningful transparency may depend on the audience and the impact of the system. What counts as adequate testing may depend on the stakes and on how the system is used. In gray areas, regulators often look for reasonable methods, documentation, and consistent application, rather than for a single correct answer. That means you should document why you chose a certain approach, what alternatives you considered, and what risks remain. This documentation is not about paperwork for its own sake; it is about showing that decisions were made thoughtfully. Gray areas become manageable when you treat them as decisions to be justified, not as mysteries to be ignored.

As we close, the main lesson is that navigating regulatory expectations for AI is less about memorizing rules and more about building governance habits that regulators recognize as responsible. You stay aligned by focusing on accountability, traceability, proportionality, oversight, and privacy and security practices that match the potential harm of the use case. You avoid overpromising by using defensible transparency, meaning you communicate what you do and what you measure instead of claiming perfection. You treat guidance as a signal of expectations, even when it is not strictly binding, and you manage third party risk without repeating marketing claims as guarantees. You communicate clearly about current controls, planned improvements, and open evaluations, which keeps trust intact when things evolve. When you approach regulation as a continuous alignment process rather than a one time compliance statement, you protect both the organization and the people affected by AI systems.