AI GRC: The AI-Native Cyber GRC Platform

It is a single place for three activities that usually live apart: governance (policies, ownership, committees), risk (identification, analysis, treatment, residual risk tracking) and compliance (applicable frameworks, control plan, evidence, gaps, remediation). The point is not to store more documents. It is to connect a risk to the controls that treat it, those controls to the evidence that proves them, and that evidence to a requirement, so an auditor or a board committee can follow the thread without rebuilding the reasoning.

No, and that is deliberate. The AI takes on the preparatory work: reading your project documents, prefilling the pre-assessment and the risk assessment from excerpts, proposing the effort and cost of measures. The decision itself (accept, reduce or transfer a risk) stays with the analyst and the risk owner, who approve or correct what was proposed. Every approval is recorded, because that is precisely what an auditor will ask you to demonstrate.

Those whose obligations no longer fit in a shared file. In practice: entities within the scope of the NIS2 directive, which covers far more sectors and entities than the 2016 NIS directive; financial entities and their critical ICT third-party service providers under the DORA regulation; organisations working towards ISO/IEC 27001 certification; and any supplier answering customer security questionnaires. The trigger is rarely headcount. It is the number of frameworks that have to be maintained in parallel.

Yes, and that is the most immediate benefit. Requirements overlap heavily: the risk-management measures listed in Article 21 of the NIS2 directive, the Annex A controls of ISO/IEC 27001 and the ICT risk management requirements of DORA often call for the same evidence, produced three times by three people. A GRC platform attaches one piece of evidence to every requirement it satisfies, shows what is still uncovered, and spares you a blank page each time a new framework lands.

No. Software does not produce compliance. ISO/IEC 27001 certification applies to an organisation's information security management system and is issued only after an audit, by an accredited certification body. What a tool provides is the raw material: a defined scope, a repeatable risk assessment, a statement of applicability kept current, dated evidence and a decision history. The work remains yours. What disappears is the scramble to rebuild the file in the weeks before the audit.

A spreadsheet holds up as long as the risk map stands still. It keeps no history of a decision, does not link a risk to its controls and their evidence, warns nobody when a remediation date passes, and forks into as many versions as it has recipients. The real cost shows up at audit time: working out who approved what, when, and on which version. A platform keeps that thread and makes the annual review incremental rather than a rewrite. In Vailor, the AI also prefills the risk assessment from your documents: your experts review and approve instead of starting from a blank page.

As SaaS, data is stored in France (AWS Paris region), and AI processing runs on AWS Bedrock in EU regions. Depending on your context, Vailor also installs in your own infrastructure, with the AI model of your choice. Vailor is a French vendor, which simplifies the transfer analysis expected under the GDPR and the recurring questions legal teams raise about exposure to extraterritorial legislation. This is not an abstract concern for a GRC platform: it concentrates the risk map, the compliance gaps and the audit evidence, which together describe an organisation's weaknesses in some detail.