In your business is a document that says what you can't do, lost on a network drive, until something goes wrong.
At Hiaitus we build simple, high impact AI systems that learn the codes you answer to and the policies you write yourself, then automatically check work against both before anything is actioned or signed off. We built one for Australian advertising compliance and it is in market today. The method works on any codified framework.
What is a regulatory AI system?
A regulatory AI system reads a written framework, turns its requirements into tests, and checks work against those tests before anything is published or signed off.
Hiaitus builds them in Australia. Checked It, our own product, does this for advertising across six sectors against codes from the ABAC Scheme, Ad Standards, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, ACMA and FSANZ. The same method works on Fair Work awards, the Australian Privacy Principles, NDIS Practice Standards, or a policy nobody has opened since 2023.
How does a regulatory AI system actually work?
Three moves. The same three we use on every build, pointed at a framework instead of a workflow.
The rules, and how they were applied
Public codes, internal policy, and the decisions in between.
We take the public code, and the parts nobody publishes: your brand guidelines, your legal team's standing positions, the two-page list of things you would never do. Then the decisions. Every case a regulator has ruled on is a worked example of how the rule reads in practice.
Rules become tests, precedent becomes reference
Where a rules engine stops and this starts.
A checklist tells you a claim needs substantiation, which your reviewer already knew. It cannot tell you that a near-identical claim was dismissed in 2022 and a bolder one upheld in 2024. We encode the rule as a test and the decision as a reference case, so the system reasons about the gap between them.
Assessed before it goes out, decided by a person
A faster first pass. Your reviewer still owns the call.
Work gets screened before it reaches legal, the client or the regulator. Findings come back with the clause cited and the closest decided case attached, so your reviewer confirms a position rather than starting from a blank page. The system never signs anything off. That stays with a named person, and the log records who.
Which frameworks can we build AI systems for?
Any framework with written rules. Where the regulator publishes its decisions or guidelines, we encode those as well, so the system knows how a rule needs to be applied and how it has been applied in practice, inclusive of what you can (as opposed to cannot) do.
Framework | Who decides | We check against |
|---|---|---|
Advertising and marketing Built: Checked It | Ad Standards, ABAC Scheme, ACMA, TGA | Rules + precedent |
Financial product promotion | ASIC | Rules + precedent |
Workplace relations and Modern Awards | Fair Work Commission | Rules + precedent |
Privacy and the Australian Privacy Principles | OAIC | Rules + precedent |
NDIS provider compliance | NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission | Rules + precedent |
Aged care quality standards | Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission | Rules + precedent |
Work health and safety | Safe Work Australia | Rules + precedent |
Telecommunications consumer protections | ACMA | Rules + precedent |
Franchising disclosure | ACCC | Rules + precedent |
Energy retail conduct | Australian Energy Regulator | Rules only |
Food labelling and composition | FSANZ | Rules only |
Mandatory climate reporting | ASIC, AASB | Rules only |
Your own internal policy Most of what we build | You | Rules only |
Not on the list? The only question is whether your rules are written down. If they are, we can encode them.
Some frameworks we will not take on. Clinical decision support, personal financial advice, tax agent services and migration advice each carry a licence obligation that would land on us rather than on you. Anti-money laundering is a firmer no: thin enforcement record, and the tipping-off provisions make it genuinely risky.
What does one of these look like in market?
Checked It is ours. It screens advertising creative against Australian regulatory codes before publication, across six sectors, and it is in market today.
It is the reason this page exists. We did not write a capability deck about regulatory AI and then go looking for a client. We built the system, sold it, supported it, and found out where it breaks.
The engines are versioned, so when a regulator moves the prompts move. ASIC reissued its advertising guidance for financial products in June 2026, the first substantive update in over a decade. A tool that was correct in March can be quietly wrong by September, and keeping one current is the part most vendors do not price.
Checked It has its own pricing and its own trial at checkedit.ai. Here it is doing one job, which is showing you we have already done this once.
Codes built into the engine
- Alcohol: ABAC Scheme, Ad Standards, AANA
- Health and Supplements: TGA, Ad Standards, FSANZ
- Gambling and Gaming: ACMA, Ad Standards, AANA
- Food and Beverage: FSANZ, Ad Standards, AANA
- News and Publishing: Australian Press Council, ACMA, MEAA
- Insurance Brokers: ASIC, ACCC, Insurance Council of Australia
What are we building next, and what can we build into yours?
Three capabilities are in build inside Checked It this quarter. Each one is a pattern that transfers to any framework.
Brand guideline screening
The rules that are yours, not the regulator's.
Every organisation has a document nobody opens. For a brand it is tone, colour, the words you avoid, and the short list of things you would never do. It gets briefed once, and then an influencer posts on a Saturday. We are building screening that reads those guidelines the way we read a regulatory code, and the same pattern handles an internal policy or a licence condition. Regulatory breaches are rare; off-brand work happens every week, and it is what your client notices first.
Pre-approved claims libraries
Stop re-approving claims you cleared last year.
Most regulated organisations keep a spreadsheet of claims legal has already signed off, by product, by market, sometimes by date. It is rarely consulted, because checking it is slower than asking. We are building ingestion for those files so cleared claims are recognised on sight and lifted out of the queue, leaving your reviewer only what is genuinely new.
Precedent comparison
How was something like this judged before?
Put up a piece of work and see the decided cases closest to it in substance, with the outcome and the reasoning. Useful when a reviewer is deciding, and more useful in the conversation afterwards, when someone senior asks why the answer was no.
Questions we get asked
Something else? Ask us in the feasibility assessment. It's free, and it quite often ends with us saying the method won't work for you.
Tell us what you have to comply with. We'll tell you if this works.
A feasibility assessment is a short conversation and a written answer: whether your framework can be encoded, whether the precedent layer is available to you, what a first build would cover, and what it would cost. If the answer is that it will not work, you get that in writing too, with the reason.