Fraud & Insider Risk · PolicySentry
Check incident facts against your policies and controls
Provide your incident facts and your policy or control framework — get a structured map of which provisions the facts appear to touch, with areas flagged for human compliance review.
Illustrative content · Public sources only
| Incident fact | Policy / control touched | Review priority |
|---|---|---|
| Unapproved data transfer | Data handling policy | High |
| Approval step skipped | Authorization control | High |
| Late incident reporting | Escalation procedure | Medium |
| Ambiguous access grant | Access management policy | Medium |
A decision-ready artifact
What you get
A focused brief that keeps the evidence, uncertainty, and next actions visible.
- Structured summary of the incident facts as provided
- Fact-by-fact mapping to your policies and controls
- Prioritized list of areas requiring human compliance review
- Facts that match no provided provision, flagged separately
- Notes on ambiguous or overlapping policy language
- Suggested questions for the compliance reviewer
Start with what you know
What you can enter
From input to source-linked brief
- 01Facts & framework intake
Provide the incident facts and the policies or controls to check against.
- 02Mapping
Each fact is matched against the provided provisions, with unmatched items kept separate.
- 03Priority review
Touched controls are organized by review priority, with ambiguities noted.
- 04Mapping brief
Receive a structured artifact your compliance team can review and act on.
Use cases
Quickly see which policies an incident appears to touch before assigning reviewers.
Give investigators a structured fact-to-control map as a working baseline.
Facts that match no provision point to possible gaps in your framework.
Arrive at the review meeting with a prioritized, structured mapping instead of raw notes.
What this is not
4S8 works with public sources, your case material, and source-linked analysis to support human review — not to replace legal, compliance, or investigative judgment.
- Not a compliance ruling or breach determination
- Works only against the policies and frameworks you provide
- No live access to your systems or case management tools
- Not legal advice or a regulatory interpretation
- Mapping quality depends on the clarity of the provided documents
- Final judgment always rests with your compliance function
Frequently asked questions
Does this decide whether a policy was violated?
No. It maps facts to the provisions they appear to touch and flags where human compliance review is required. The determination itself stays with your team.
Do you need access to our compliance systems?
No. The mapping runs entirely on the incident facts and policy documents you provide — there is no system integration or live access.
What if the incident touches something our policies don't cover?
Unmatched facts are flagged separately. That is often the most useful output — it points to possible gaps in your framework.
Can we standardize this across incidents?
Yes. Running each incident through the same mapping structure keeps reviews consistent and makes patterns across incidents easier to spot.
Start with a source-linked brief
Start free — begin now and get a structured, reviewable artifact back.
Map incident to policy