Frame the decision
Name the audience, requested decision and source pack. Review imported tables and extracted text; record gaps instead of allowing a polished narrative to conceal them.
AI Compliance Brief Generator — Prepare Documentation for Review
Draft a compliance brief from your policies, control evidence and the rules you supply. Organize findings, owners and remediation work for a qualified reviewer. Regulatory applicability and clause interpretation remain your responsibility.
Compare Business plansBusiness · real output
Keep the recommendation connected to its inputs.
Inspect an actual Business report. A readable decision brief needs the question, supplied evidence, options, assumptions and next decision—not just a shorter source document.
Should a Small Organisation Adopt the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?
Findings, options, risks and a recommendation, cited by number to two NIST publications.
Inspect the source brief or data
Prepare an executive brief for the owner of a small organisation that holds customer information. It should say whether the organisation should adopt the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0, what the framework's six functions ask of it, and what to do first. Use only the supplied documents and cite them.
Read the sample review notes
Open the full export and compare its statements with the cited sources before reuse.
Inspect the analysis
Separate supplied facts, calculated values, assumptions and recommendations. For variance work, reconcile the period, unit, baseline and actual value before interpreting the direction of a difference.
Make the handoff usable
Use options, trade-offs, risks and named next actions. Review the final artifact and, when using Analyst calculations, inspect the calculation evidence separately from the narrative.
Source packs, conflicts and review decisions
Select source documents, case context, working notes, assumptions, options and decision constraints before generation. Inspect claims, metrics, exact quotations, source tables and conflicting figures. Review decisions are scoped to the source or artifact and can become stale after evidence changes; unresolved evidence should stay visible.
Calculation evidence and scenario comparison
Keep investment, recurring costs, benefits, delays, growth, discount assumptions and scenario probabilities explicit. Inspect deterministic cash flow and the available return, payback and sensitivity outputs. Compare scenarios before selection, and inspect the formula workbook or calculation receipt separately from the narrative recommendation.
Analyst, repeat periods and execution
Inspect the dossier's source tables, working rows and columns, calculation ledger and workbook handoff. Metric packs retain reviewable calculation and source context. Preview source replacements for a new period before accepting them. Execution records distinguish an action owner, baseline, target, measured value, data source and the reason for a status change.
A calculation can be replayable while the supplied inputs remain wrong. A generated report is decision support, not independent diligence, audit assurance or investment advice.
An AI compliance brief generator drafts structured compliance documentation from a supplied scope and source pack. Gixo Business can organize control evidence, gaps, proposed actions and named regulatory references. Its references appendix repeats the laws, standards and provisions you enter; it does not retrieve authoritative clauses or automatically map each control to a requirement.
Additional product example
What to supply before generation
Define the entity and review scope
Name the business unit, jurisdiction, reporting period, relevant process and intended reviewer. Say whether the task is an internal gap review, board update or preparation for an external audit.
Upload the actual control evidence
Use current policies, control descriptions, test records and issue logs. Include dates and owners. Naming GDPR or ISO 27001 in the instructions is not evidence that a control exists or that a requirement applies.
Supply the references you need addressed
Use the optional Rules or standards panel for jurisdiction, laws or standards and specific references. Have a qualified reviewer verify those references and the proposed interpretation.
What to expect and how to review it
A reviewable control narrative
Ask for the control objective, evidence supplied, observed gap, owner and next action. Where a source is silent, retain an open question instead of a claim of compliance.
A documented review process
Compare the draft against each source and the authoritative requirement. Confirm dates, thresholds, citations and whether a proposed action actually addresses the gap. The Evidence tab helps locate review work; it is not an audit opinion.
A useful export boundary
Export the corrected brief for stakeholder review or audit preparation. The editor’s Evidence-tab findings are separate from the document; they are not automatically inserted into its PDF or DOCX. Record your review conclusions in the brief before sharing it.
From a source sentence to a reviewed claim
Illustrative source: A supplied pilot report says: “18 of 24 invited teams completed the four-week pilot. No commercial renewal decision has been made.”
Draft sentence to inspect: “18 teams completed the pilot [1], demonstrating strong renewal demand.” The marker can lead to the report, but the report does not support the renewal conclusion. Keep the observed completion count; replace the unsupported inference with “Renewal intent remains untested.”
In Checks → Evidence: Inspect the claim-matching and citation findings, open the source, and edit the sentence in the brief. A missing-marker finding does not insert a reference for you. Even a matched sentence needs review of its meaning. This is a worked review example with invented data, not a customer result or a claim that this exact draft was generated.
See the Business editor and Evidence workflow · Review the product and plan boundaries
Questions to settle before you use the output
Does Gixo automatically map my controls to regulatory clauses?
No. You provide the jurisdiction, laws or standards and specific references. These shape the draft and appear in a Regulatory / Normative References appendix. Gixo does not look up authoritative clauses, determine applicability or certify that a control satisfies a requirement.
How are citations to my uploaded files created?
Upload source files and Gixo writes the brief to cite the claims and figures it takes from them, with numbered markers such as [1] and [2] and a Sources section listing those files. The writing model places the markers, so a sentence can go uncited: the Evidence tab in the brief editor lists up to five sentences that have none, for you to check, and adds nothing to the brief itself. A brief written without uploaded files has nothing to cite. Marketing and customer-facing formats such as social posts, press notes and email campaigns are written from your files without visible citations.
What do number checks and the Evidence tab actually establish?
Where a brief has sources - files you upload or connect, pages you add, or the search results web research drew on - a repair stage compares the figures in the paragraphs, lists and table body cells of the draft with the numbers in those sources, and rewrites any sentence or cell whose figure it cannot find there, substituting the source value or dropping the claim. A table heading or row label is read as context, not as a figure, and a total, difference or share the table works out from its own cells is never rewritten. That is reconciliation against your own sources, not an independent fact-check, and it is silent: nothing is marked up in the delivered brief, and a sentence it cannot repair, or a draft it cannot finish, keeps its original figures. For a brief written from sources you upload or from the search results web research drew on, the Evidence tab under Checks in the brief editor lists up to five sentences or table cells whose wording or figures it could not match to those sources, for you to check. It matches wording and exact figures, not meaning: a faithful paraphrase, or $8.1M where the source says 8,100,000, can fail to match while being true, so an unmatched sentence is a place to look, not an error, and a matched one is not confirmed either, because this is a comparison with your own sources, not a fact-check. It reads only part of a long source (24 passages of up to 1,600 characters) and at most 12 sources, files first. Of web research it reads the title and snippet of each search result, not the page, so a figure taken from the page alone does not match, and if it could not read every result the list is advisory. It reads a table cell with its row and column, and a total the table works out from its own cells passes when the arithmetic holds. It checks the draft as generated, not your later edits. Treat every figure as needing review until you have confirmed it at the source.
How are regulatory references handled?
In the optional Rules or standards panel you can name the jurisdiction, the laws or standards, and specific references such as GDPR Article 30, one per line. The brief is shaped around them, for structure and required disclosures, and ends with a Regulatory / Normative References appendix listing what you named. Gixo does not look clauses up or map requirements to them for you, and the appendix is not a source for factual claims in the brief.
Does a passed check remove the need for review?
The source forecast and verification gate are review aids, not independent fact-checking. Reviewers must confirm important claims, figures, assumptions, and recommendations against authoritative sources.
Updated
More from Gixo