Regulatory Relevance Router
Routes each authenticated change to the legal entities, products, jurisdictions and accountable owners it may affect.
Uses conservative relevance signals and the enterprise perimeter graph to launch bounded reviews, while recording why apparently irrelevant changes were screened out.
Authority
Recommend
Team role
Routes work to specialists
Handoffs
Named collaborators
The role
What it owns and where its authority ends
Desk
Horizon Intelligence
Desk workflow
Acquire, authenticate, classify, compare, score and route a durable regulatory change event.
Collaboration
Calls several specialists in parallel
Decision boundary
Prepares a recommendation for an accountable decision owner.
Systems and capabilities involved
Enterprise perimeter graph
Regulatory topic and activity taxonomy
Owner and committee directory
Triage approval queue
Handoffs
What this role gives and receives
Capabilities offered
Route a regulatory change
Produces a conservative affected-perimeter hypothesis and accountable review assignments.
- Receives:
- Authenticated change event and enterprise perimeter
- Returns:
- Triage map, rationale, reviewers and response clocks
Delegates
Determine the entity, activity and jurisdiction perimeter requiring counsel review. Trigger: Triage owner accepts a potentially relevant change Returns: Applicability matrix and legal questions.
Delegates
Resolve consultation, effective and compliance clocks. Trigger: The source contains any decision or implementation date Returns: Normalized deadline graph with assumptions.
Receives from
Receives from
Context
What the role needs to do the work
- Current work
- The change event under triage and the affected-perimeter hypothesis
- Prior interactions
- Prior routing decisions, screened-out changes and their recorded rationale
- Policies and reference
- The enterprise perimeter graph, topic taxonomy and owner directory
- Working method
- Conservative triage and escalation playbooks
Illustrative workflow
How the work moves
Starting point
A foreign regulator changes outsourcing expectations for branches and licensed affiliates
- 01
Match jurisdiction and entity types
- 02
Map affected outsourced activities
- 03
Identify accountable owners
- 04
Launch applicability and deadline reviews
Result
Affected-perimeter hypothesis with explicit exclusions, reviewers and clocks
Checks and boundaries
What must be tested or reviewed
- 01Seeded affected entities and products are never screened out without review
- 02Every routing and exclusion decision retains explainable evidence
- 03Assignments resolve to named accountable owners and due dates
Human authority
- Regulatory change owner approves material screen-outs and review perimeter
Keep exploring