1. Home
  2. Compliance
  3. SOX for AI Agents
Draft page (status: review). Visible in build for editor review - not yet promoted to "published".
Compliance Solution

SOX for AI Agents

Practical SOX guide for teams shipping AI agents: who's affected, what controls map to which provisions, and how to collect evidence.

Last updated 25 May 2026

Sarbanes-Oxley Act, issued by US SEC and PCAOB, applies to us public companies. This page covers what affects AI agent teams specifically and how to map controls to it.

*Source: official SOX reference. This page is practical guidance — confirm interpretation with your counsel.*

Key dates

Effective 2002

Key provisions for AI agents

  • Section 302 — corporate responsibility for reports
  • Section 404 — management assessment of internal controls
  • ICFR (Internal Control over Financial Reporting)
  • IT general controls

Who is affected

US public companies

How Prefactor addresses it

ProvisionWhat it requiresHow Prefactor addresses it
Risk managementContinuous risk management process across agent lifecycleEval suites, drift detection, policy versioning, tamper-evident logs, approval flows
Record-keepingAutomatic logging that enables traceabilityEval suites, drift detection, policy versioning, tamper-evident logs, approval flows
Human oversightEffective human intervention and overrideEval suites, drift detection, policy versioning, tamper-evident logs, approval flows
Accuracy and robustnessPerformance, robustness, attack resilienceEval suites, drift detection, policy versioning, tamper-evident logs, approval flows
Post-market monitoringContinuous performance monitoring in productionEval suites, drift detection, policy versioning, tamper-evident logs, approval flows
TransparencyDocumentation and information for deployersEval suites, drift detection, policy versioning, tamper-evident logs, approval flows

Evidence collection

Auditors and reviewers typically expect:

  • Continuous, dated evidence — not point-in-time snapshots
  • Override and intervention records — proof humans actually retained control
  • Eval results tied to specific agent versions
  • Risk decisions tied to changes
  • Incident records, even minor ones
  • Plain-language documentation

Common gaps in SOX for AI agents

1. Logs not tamper-evident — application database isn't audit evidence.

2. Human oversight is theoretical — system allows override but nobody uses it.

3. Post-market monitoring is reactive — only investigated when something breaks.

4. No change management — prompts edited in production with no record.

5. Retrieval corpus not in scope of data governance — only training data is considered.

Implementation timeline

30 days: Inventory agents in scope. Begin technical documentation. Enable comprehensive tamper-evident logging.

90 days: Operate risk management. Stand up human oversight. Establish post-market monitoring cadence. First self-assessment.

180 days: Complete documentation. Pre-conformity review. Incident reporting workflow. Full readiness.

FAQ

Does using a 'compliant' provider make us compliant? No. Deployers have independent obligations under most frameworks.

Can Prefactor make us compliant? Prefactor provides the technical and operational layer. Full compliance requires legal, organizational, and product decisions too.

Related

Get a SOX readiness assessment

[Book a briefing →]

Ready to control your agents?

Maintain visibility and control across agents, frameworks, and AI providers. Prefactor helps teams monitor activity, enforce boundaries, and manage operational risk.