Vailor: the sovereign AI-native GRC alternative to Tenacy

By tracking few things and actually keeping them current. Three objects carry the whole exercise: a live risk register, the real state of your controls against the frameworks you apply, and an action plan where every line has a named owner and a due date. The rest is documentation: useful, but not something you steer with. Teams of two or three rarely fail for want of indicators. They fail because keeping those indicators current depends on chasing and re-keying that no calendar survives for twelve months.

The ones that change a decision. Control coverage per framework shows where to spend the effort. The share of risks formally accepted, and by whom, shows what the organisation is carrying. Overdue actions and their age show whether the plan is moving. The age of your evidence shows what will be challenged at the next audit. An indicator that never reorders the quarter's priorities is clutter. In Vailor, risk and measure dashboards are built from data already captured, so monitoring adds no second round of data entry.

By tying every action back to its origin. An action exists because a risk must be reduced, a control gap closed or a committee decision applied, and that link is what settles the argument when resources are short. Vailor keeps that link, carries the owner and the due date on the action itself, and keeps decisions time-stamped. Tracking then stops depending on reminders: what is coming due, and what has gone stale, is read off the plan rather than out of an inbox. Reviewing the plan becomes reading, not investigating.

Exposure, trade-offs and the decisions you need from them, not a technical inventory. The NIS2 directive requires management bodies to approve cybersecurity risk-management measures and to oversee their implementation, so the report is the act that carries their accountability, not a courtesy update. A format that holds up: what changed since the last committee, the risks whose treatment depends on a budget call, and the risk acceptances that need a named sign-off. ISO 27001 also expects a management review at planned intervals, drawing on the same material.

It takes on the work that needs no judgement. In a risk analysis, the AI reads the project documents and prefills the fields, citing the excerpts it relies on; with no documents, Vailor organises the collection from business teams with simple questions. It also proposes the effort and cost of each measure. The judgement calls stay human, because accepting a residual risk or deferring a remediation commits the organisation. Every decision is recorded, which is what lets one person review, correct and stand behind the result in front of an auditor.

Start from what has to survive the move: the risk register, control status per framework, evidence and its dates, open actions with their owners, and the risk acceptances already recorded. Those items export and reload; what a rushed migration loses is the links between them. Our team supports the migration, and an integration partner such as CYNERS can take over from there, so a small team does not absorb the move on its own. Running one review cycle alongside your current tool is usually enough to confirm nothing was left behind.