About Us

The Core Problem: A Reactive Ecosystem

Global AI incident tracking is an active, populated space. The AI Incident Database has indexed catastrophic failures for years; newer initiatives like the AI Incident Tracker cross-link incidents to applicable statutes and litigation; and MIT maintains its own classifier categorizing incidents under a formal risk taxonomy.

Yet every single one of these platforms shares two critical limitations:

1. They are not India-specific: They map predominantly to EU AI Act provisions, US FTC enforcement actions, or US federal litigation.
2. They are fundamentally reactive: They document algorithmic harms after a borrower has already been wrongfully denied credit, after a candidate has already been filtered out by a discriminatory HR model, or after an automated healthcare triage system has already misclassified a patient.

On the Indian domestic side, the Telecommunications Engineering Centre (TEC) under the Department of Telecommunications issued a landmark standard for AI incident logging (TEC 57090:2025: Standard for the Schema and Taxonomy of an AI Incident Database in Telecommunications and Critical Digital Infrastructure). However, TEC explicitly confined its standard to taxonomical categorization and schema definition after an incident occurs, deliberately leaving proactive compliance verification, algorithmic audits, and statutory enforcement outside its scope.

Meanwhile, funded enterprise GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance) startups build private, internal self-assessment dashboards sold exclusively to corporations under strict non-disclosure agreements.

That is the real gap: nobody—not the global incident trackers, not India's government standard, and not private GRC software vendors—is publishing proactive, public, evidence-qualified gap analysis. Nobody is looking at a live company's current practices and asking, before anything goes wrong: "Where does this system fail to hold up against the framework?"

Relationship to SutraCheck & Institutional Neutrality

The Compliance Ledger is powered by the evaluation matrix of SutraCheck. However, the publication is intentionally hosted, branded, and maintained as a separate publication at complianceledger.in.

This architectural separation is deliberate:

• Preserving SutraCheck's Impartiality: SutraCheck’s core value as an open compliance engine depends entirely on being trusted as a neutral, objective classifier. If companies feared that testing their models on SutraCheck risked making them the subject of our next public audit, adoption of the neutral tool would be severely impaired.
• Independent Investigative Mandate: The Compliance Ledger operates with complete editorial independence. Every report feeds verified public facts into SutraCheck’s public engine, publishing the raw output side-by-side with legal analysis. This stress-tests the engine against messy real-world disclosures while providing public accountability.

Legal Defensibility & Hedged Language

Publishing public evaluations of corporate AI deployments carries substantial legal responsibility. The Compliance Ledger enforces strict evidential standards:

• Verifiable Public Evidence Only: We never rely on whistleblowers, internal leaks, or speculation regarding unobservable proprietary weights. Findings are grounded in published privacy policies, engineering blogs, job descriptions, regulatory filings, and terms of service.
• Structural Hedging: Our report schemas do not permit bare verdicts such as "this company is breaking the law." Every finding is structurally formulated as: "no public evidence found of [X], as of [date], based on review of [source]."
• Strict Separation of Law vs. Best Practices: Conflating failure to adopt an optional ethical recommendation with a statutory violation is intellectually dishonest and legally indefensible. We physically separate binding statutory requirements (DPDPA 2023, Consumer Protection Act 2019, RBI guidelines) from voluntary SutraCheck governance pillars.
• Pre-Publication Right of Reply: Named companies are formally provided a 7-day notification window before report publication to submit clarifications or evidence of updated disclosures. Their formal statements are published verbatim.

The Indian Regulatory Benchmarks We Evaluate

Our two-column matrix benchmarks public disclosures against key Indian frameworks:

Institutional Transparency & Governance

The Compliance Ledger is governed by researchers, legal analysts, and software engineers committed to evidence-based technology accountability in the Global South. We hold ourselves to the highest standards of institutional transparency:

Participate or Request an Evaluation

Forward-thinking AI platforms and engineering teams operating in sensitive Indian sectors are invited to submit their systems for an opt-in review under our Feature 5 program. Learn more on our Request Review page or reach our desk directly at Contact Us.