How Carver Maps AI-Agent Workflows to Potential Obligations

What the assessment is trying to establish

The assessment connects a described workflow to potentially relevant regulatory provisions. It is decision support for identifying questions and organizing follow-up work. It does not certify an agent as lawful, establish insurance coverage, or replace a professional determination of the organization’s obligations.

This methodology describes the implemented product flow and the limitations visible in its outputs. It does not claim an independent legal accuracy study, a quantified recall rate, or a validated coverage percentage. No such benchmark is published on this page.

From description to structured facts

The intake asks what the agent does, who it interacts with, where it operates, what data it uses, and what decisions it can make. The resulting profile distinguishes established answers from facts still needed. In MCP, draft_agent_profile returns a partial twin, a question, and a confirmation flag. Drafting does not store an agent; create_agent_profile saves the completed profile and queues assessment.

A description such as “customer support agent” is insufficient to settle the implications of processing health data, contacting children, making credit decisions, or deploying in a particular jurisdiction. Supply those facts explicitly. The system’s questions are a way to improve the profile, not a promise that every legally material fact has been elicited.

Mapping and uncertainty

The mapping associates source provisions with the profile and reports applicability, relevant conditions, and missing information. In the public assessment, a potentially active obligation can remain undetermined because the profile does not establish an addressee’s status or another trigger.

Output	What it supports	What it does not establish
Potentially applicable provision	A source-backed issue worth checking	A final legal conclusion
Missing fact or open question	A specific fact to obtain	Permission to assume the favorable answer
Citation and source URL	An auditable reference to inspect	That the source is current or correctly interpreted
Suggested owner or work stage	A starting point for organizing review	A statutory assignment of legal responsibility
Recorded compliance answer	Your organization’s stated decision and notes	Independent certification by Carver

The MCP estate includes recorded decision states such as to_decide, in_progress, compliant, non_compliant, and not_applicable. These differ from the public assessment’s applicability labels. A pipeline must not translate an unresolved applicability result into a recorded compliant answer.

Inspect evidence before action

For each material result, inspect the identified source, the specific provision, the condition the model used, the fact that would resolve uncertainty, and the proposed operational response. Compare the scope of the condition with the provision itself. Then record the evidence, decision-maker, and reason for any conclusion.

The worked assessment demonstrates why this matters: a historical source and a potentially over-broad missing-fact condition must be checked rather than copied into policy. Source links enable that review; they do not perform it automatically.

Read coverage independently of processing state

The service reports both processing state and coverage information. A completed mapping can produce partial rather than ready when the recorded coverage is incomplete. Even ready is bounded by the sources and profile available to the assessment. It does not mean every jurisdiction, topic, or obligation has been exhaustively searched.

Read the coverage guide for the distinction between a source considered, an obligation assessed, and a capability not traced to any obligation. A zero count can mean lack of assessment or data; it is not proof that there is no relevant law.

Change and review

Reassess the profile when deployment regions, affected users, data categories, autonomy, or business roles change. Separately check whether cited sources have been amended or replaced. A source’s publication date, a result’s generation date, the product’s source-currentness field, and this documentation’s content-check date describe different things.

There is no universal legal review date on an automated result. Your organization should obtain appropriately qualified review for conclusions it intends to rely on. This page was checked as product documentation; it has not been represented as legally reviewed.