Key highlights:

• • • AI governance is hard to prove in practice — While our research shows that 44% of companies publish an AI strategy, 76% of those same companies show no evidence of having policies to evaluate the quality of data used to train AI systems.

    • Workers are being left under-prepared and under-protected — Only 14% of companies have policies to mitigate the negative impacts of AI on workers, and only 31% offer any reskilling or training programs around adapting to an AI-integrated workplace.

    • Human rights and ethics appear an afterthought in AI governance — Almost three-quarters (72%) of companies conduct no AI impact assessments, and less than 1 in 10 companies conduct ethical or human rights assessments.

There is a widening chasm at the heart of corporate AI governance, according to a new report, , published by the ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę Foundation and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The Foundation’s analyzed publicly available information from nearly 3,000 companies across 11 industry sectors, creating the most comprehensive picture yet of how organizations are managing AI.

Beneath the surface of corporate AI governance mechanisms, divergence between the speed of AI adoption and meaningful human oversight is growing. The report’s findings make clear that this is no longer a gap that organizations can afford to ignore, especially when backlash against is growing and are solidifying among consumers in the United States.

Data highlights the illusion of AI governance

Businesses of different sizes and across multiple sectors are adopting AI technology at a rapid pace. When governance exists only in the wording of a strategy or company vision, however, the people most affected by AI systems — workers, consumers, and communities — are left vulnerable. According to the report:

• • • 44% of companies publicly communicate having an AI strategy. However, a gap in AI governance is evident as more than three-quarters of those companies (76%) do not seem to have policies to evaluate the quality of data used to train AI systems.
    • 40% of companies report board- or committee-level oversight of AI. At the same time, strategic signals do not necessarily indicate operational capacity or day-to-day governance. In fact, less than one-third of all sampled companies claim to have an additional team or resource dedicated to AI governance. Moreover, limited information is publicly disclosed on the teams, processes, and accountability mechanisms that translate intent into action.

Workers are being left behind

Research by the International Monetary Fund finds almost , highlighting the acute nature of concerns about job displacement and declining opportunities for some groups. Without sufficient oversight, AI can threaten workers’ rights, amplify bias, and increase surveillance and work intensity, which can enable inhumane decision-making at scale.

The TR Foundation/UNESCO report notes that many companies are adopting AI without the safeguards needed to support workers and help them to adapt to the changes this technology brings. Less than one-third of companies were shown to offer training and reskilling programs for employees who may be adapting to an AI-integrated workplace. Even within the 31% of organizations in which these training programs exist, there is a vast variation in the scope and depth of the training offered.

In fact, many company training programs are not enterprise-wide or structured. Instead, they are ad-hoc or limited to leadership roles. This lack of investment in talent risks undermining the significant investment that companies are making in AI.

Despite growing pressure from regulators, policymakers and social justice campaigners, the ethical impact of AI appears poorly governed, with companies sharing limited information publicly.

The picture on worker protections is equally concerning. Only 14% of companies have public policies in place to mitigate the negative impacts of AI systems on workers, the report shows. This means the majority of companies either have no policies in place or do not publicly communicate them.

What is more troubling is that when workers experience harm, there is almost nowhere for them to turn. Only 2% of companies indicated they had a complaints mechanism — a critical early warning system for potential concerns. The findings suggest many organizations lack a mechanism for AI-related internal complaints beyond the broad generic complaint channel, and this is compounded by low awareness of the areas in which AI systems may infringe employees’ rights and protections.

Ethics and human dignity as an afterthought

Despite growing pressure from regulators, policymakers and social justice campaigners, the ethical impact of AI appears poorly governed, with companies sharing limited information publicly.

Human rights and ethical use of AI are treated as secondary considerations to compliance, according to our research. The majority of companies (72%) do not conduct any impact assessment with regard to AI. Only 7% publicly communicate conducting a fundamental or human rights impact assessment, and just 5% report conducting an ethical impact assessment.

Among those companies conducting some form of impact assessment, the focus skews sharply toward compliance rather than people. The most prevalent assessments are privacy or compliance-focused, with 18% of those companies that conduct some form of impact assessment reporting that they conducted a data protection impact assessment, and 14% reporting they conducted a privacy impact assessment.

How to center people in AI governance

Closing this governance gap is essential for companies in order to adopt AI responsibly and avoid costly legal, ethical operational, talent-related risks.

To support companies in navigating this challenge, offers a free survey to help companies map the areas in which AI is used across products, operations and services, and then benchmark those against peers their sector.

The report also contains case studies from companies that voluntarily shared their responsible practices with us. For example, German software company SAP intentionally designs and deploys its internal AI systems with a human-in-the-loop in which AI automates repetitive tasks and supports decision-making while final judgment and complex problem-solving remain firmly in the hands of employees.

As AI becomes part of core business infrastructure, companies must move beyond statements of intent and toward measurable AI governance.

In another example, BASF, a German chemical conglomerate, has jointly agreed with its workers’ councils on a general reskilling program that covers technical, hard, and soft skills. Finally, Canadian telecom company TELUS’ Indigenous Advisory Council provides guidance on AI ethics issues that directly affect indigenous communities.

Next steps for companies

The TR Foundation/UNESCO report highlights the most impactful concrete commitments that companies can take now to future proof against AI-related risk, including:

• • • investing in structured, enterprise-wide worker-reskilling programs that measure outcomes, not just participation;
    • establishing enforceable human rights impact assessments as a standard part of AI deployment, not as an optional addition; and
    • creating accessible, AI-specific internal grievance mechanisms so that workers and users have a genuine pathway to raise concerns and seek remedy.

As AI becomes part of core business infrastructure, companies must move beyond statements of intent and toward measurable AI governance. While this data demonstrates clear governance gaps, it also presents an opportunity for companies to take the lead on implementing responsible AI that operates openly in the public interest.

You can learn more about

Key insights:

• • • Cloud modernization created accumulation, not transformationĚý— Many enterprises scaled infrastructure faster than they integrated systems, leaving fragmented data, duplicated processes, rising costs, and weak links between IT investment and business value.

    • AI and regulation now expose weak data architectureĚý— Agentic AI, real-time decision making, and regulatory reporting depend on consistent, traceable, well-governed data — not fragmented systems or after-the-fact governance.

    • Enterprise architecture must be rebuilt around outcomes and economicsĚý— Instead of treating the cloud as the strategy, organizations should define business outcomes first, structure data as a reusable asset, and measure architecture by revenue, cost efficiency, regulatory accuracy, and decision speed.

In this two-part blog series about the current state of cloud architecture, we look into where this architecture has failed and, in the next part of the series, what the possible remedies might be.

For the better part of the last 15 years, IT enterprise architecture definition and management didn’t disappear, it was deprioritized and replaced by as-a-Service solutions. The rapid rise of cloud platforms such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, Snowflake, and Google Cloud made it possible to stand up infrastructure, deploy applications, create advanced databases, and scale environments without the same level of architectural rigor that was once required. Speed replaced structure, and access replaced integration.

Today’s cloud realities

The problem is that what was built during this last technological explosion was not architecture — it was accumulation. Systems expanded, data proliferated, budgets exploded, and organizations convinced themselves that connectivity was the same as coherence, and that data replication was the same as the system-of-record.

These assumptions have now been exposed as false positives. Over the last three years, AI, real-time decision making, and regulatory transparency have fundamentally changed the requirements. These are not technologies that sit on top of fragmented environments, they are data-driven capabilities and outcomes that depend on precision, integration, and sequence. The arrival of agentic AI and its stringent objective-based principles cannot tolerate data ambiguity and fragmented architectural designs.

The problem is that what was built during this last technological explosion was not architecture — it was accumulation.

AI does not fail at rates exceeding 80% because models are weak, it fails because the underlying data is inconsistent, inaccessible, or economically misaligned. Regulatory frameworks do not struggle because rules are unclear, they struggle because data cannot be traced, reconciled, or produced in real time. What the cloud enabled — rapid deployment without disciplined integration — is exactly what now constrains performance. The issue is no longer whether systems can scale, but whether they can produce measurable, consistent, and adaptable outcomes.

This is where enterprise architecture returns, but just not in its previous form. The discipline cannot simply revert to academic frameworks and abstractions that were designed for a different software era. It must be rebuilt around a different sequence that sees business outcomes first, data second, and then systems engineered within those constraints. Today, enterprise architecture must be defined and managed by economic KPIs, value added, and its adaptability to rapidly changing business realities.

Where the model broke

The failures experienced today in cloud architecture are not singularly technological. Cloud platforms deliver exactly what they promise — scalable, resilient, highly available infrastructure. Rather, the failure is architectural, and more precisely, involves the economics of compartmentalized capabilities.

Enterprise value is not created at the infrastructure layer. It is created where data informs decisions, and decisions drive outcomes. By over-rotating toward infrastructure, organizations optimized the least differentiating component of the enterprise stack, while leaving the highest-value layers largely untouched.

The result is a structural imbalance in which data remains fragmented across domains, business logic continues to operate in silos, governance is applied inconsistently and often retroactively, and measurement frameworks fail to tie technology activity to financial performance.

In this model, the cloud amplifies existing conditions. If fragmentation exists, it scales fragmentation. If inefficiency exists, it scales inefficiency. Modern infrastructure, applied to legacy architecture, produces modernized dysfunction.

What makes the cloud’s illusion particularly persistent is that its failure is rarely framed in economic terms. Cloud investments are justified through technical metrics such as uptime, latency, migration progress, and consumption efficiency. And while these are necessary, they are not sufficient. They do not answer the only question that ultimately matters: “Did the investment improve the economics of the business?”

Enterprise value is not created at the infrastructure layer — it’s created where data informs decisions, and decisions drive outcomes.

In many cases, the answer is no — at least, not in a way that can be clearly articulated. Instead, organizations experience cost expansion without proportional productivity gains, increased data duplication that drive storage and processing inefficiencies, extended timelines for analytics and reporting despite real-time capabilities, and persistent manual intervention in regulatory and operational workflows.

The absence of a direct line between architecture and outcome creates a vacuum often filled with disconnected KPIs, measurement solutions, and most recently, AI-automation. And with this interoperable vacuum, activity and speed have been mistaken for progress.

Figure 1: Cloud accumulation meets enterprise architecture shifts

The data reality beneath the surface

The cloud did not fail to deliver transformation; rather it exposed why transformation had not occurred — and at the center of this exposure is data.

Most enterprises operate with data architectures that were never designed for interoperability, reuse, or regulatory-grade consistency. Definitions vary by function, pipelines are purpose-built and duplicative, and governance is layered on after the fact. Automation was designed using business rules, then software architectures, then what the data needed. Therein resides the structural disconnect for enterprise architecture in AI solutions: They are out of order.

When these legacy conditions are moved to the cloud, they do not improve, they accelerate. The organization gains speed without alignment, scale without standardization, and access without coherence. For regulated industries, this creates a compounding risk of inconsistent outputs across reporting channels, increased reconciliation overhead, reduced confidence in data lineage and auditability, and slower response to regulatory changes.

What appears to be a technology issue is, in fact, a failure of data design.

Reframing the problem

To move forward, the premise must change. The cloud is not the strategy; rather it’s the environment. Transformation does not occur when systems are moved, it occurs when the relationship between data, decisions, and outcomes is fundamentally redesigned.

This requires an organization-wide shift from infrastructure-led thinking to what is defined as value architecture. Simply put, value architecture includes data that is structured as a reusable, governed asset — not a byproduct of applications, and business outcomes that are defined upfront and used to drive architectural decisions. Its governance is embedded at the point of data creation and distribution, and it replaces redundancy by making reuse the primary scaling mechanism. Finally, measurement is tied directly to financial and operational impact.

This is not a rejection of the cloud; rather, it’s a repositioning of its role and value proposition.

The implication is both direct and unavoidable. If your current strategy cannot clearly articulate how technology investment improves the economics of your business, then your organization is operating within the cloud illusion. However, this is not a critique of past decisions. It is a recognition that the next phase of transformation requires a different operating model — one that explicitly connects architecture to economics. Moving forward, what was forgotten in the past is now a future core competency.

Most organizations using as-a-service software had assumed that the cloud provider, vendor, or combination of those dealt with the complex liabilities of making designs interoperable. The implication moving forward — as well explore more in the second installment of this series — is that service software architectures using the system ideation approaches within AI silos are failing miserably, and there are few who understand the designs and skills needed to guide enterprises in the future.

You can find more blog postsĚýby this author here

Key insights:

• • • Law firms have moved from restricting GenAI use (Don’t use tools that leak client data) to mandating it (Incorporate AI into your practice and market our firm’s GenAI capabilities)—ĚýNeither phase has given rank and file lawyers what they really need: Guidance on in which instances GenAI actually helps deliver better, cheaper, and faster legal services, where it introduces serious professional risk, and how to tell the difference.

    • GenAI’s capacity to transform legal work for the better is real, but so is its capacity to degrade itĚý—GenAI can significantly boost speed and quality on tasks involving breadth, synthesis, or straightforward analysis, but it can weaken performance on complex judgment and revision tasks — especially for stronger professionals — by encouraging overconfidence, missed issues, and superficial reasoning.

    • A use-mode framework can close theĚýgap— A proposed governance framework can give law firm leadership a practical tool for identifying in which situations GenAI enhances legal work, where it introduces serious risk, and where professional judgment is non-negotiable.

This article synthesizes findings from the author’s paper,

Your law firm undoubtedly has a policy around generative AI (GenAI), which probably tells lawyers to avoid tools that leak client data, admonishes them to look out for hallucinations, and encourages them to incorporate AI into their practice to satisfy client demands.

However, it likely does not tell them which cognitive functions they should delegate to GenAI, which they should not, and where the line between the two is absolute. In the space between restriction and mandate, lawyers are making consequential decisions about GenAI delegation every day. Meanwhile, most law firms have not addressed that space with meaningful governance.

GenAI can make legal work worse

GenAI’s capacity to transform legal work for the better is real, but so is its capacity to degrade it. Most law firm leaders know that AI can hallucinate; yet far fewer know that it can make expert legal judgment and work product actively worse.

The best evidence of this dynamic comes from a with consultants from the Boston Consulting Group, who were given similar tasks and allowed to use various levels of AI assistance, including no AI. For professional tasks requiring breadth and option generation, GenAI delivered, showing that output quality improved by 40% and consultants worked faster. For tasks requiring judgment and synthesis, however, something unexpected happened. Consultants using GenAI were 19% less likely to produce correct solutions than those working without it.

Governing GenAI’s uneven performance requires asking a question that most law firms are not asking: What cognitive function is being delegated to GenAI at each step in the workflow?

The same pattern appears in research evaluating GenAI use in legal analysis. An empirical in the Journal of Legal Education confirmed that AI dramatically improves performance on straightforward analysis while producing no measurable benefit for complex reasoning. And in the case of complex reasoning, GenAI use also introduced recurring failures, such as jumping to conclusions, missing less obvious issues, and generating confident prose that masks superficial analysis.

from the University of Minnesota focused on legal tasks showed that GenAI assistance on a synthesis task improved performance by nearly 60% and produced a surprising downstream benefit. Those participants who used AI for synthesis outperformed the control group on the subsequent independent reasoning task even after GenAI was removed. However, when GenAI was introduced at the revision stage, the picture changed. GenAI helped weaker performers, but it actively degraded the work of stronger ones. Indeed, the best lawyers in the study produced worse revised work product when they used GenAI than when they worked without it.

A use-mode governance framework

Given all these findings, governing GenAI’s uneven performance requires asking a question that most law firms are not asking. Instead of determining whether GenAI is appropriate for a particular deliverable — such as a brief, a contract, or a board presentation — the governance question instead should be: What cognitive function is being delegated to GenAI at each step in the workflow?

My proposed framework, outlined below, organizes common GenAI uses into seven recurring modes following the sequence in which lawyers actually use GenAI to produce legal work product. Then, governance controls are calibrated to the risk profile of each mode.

Modes 1 and 2: Retrieval and organization

At the mechanical end of the cognitive spectrum are two distinct functions. In retrieval mode (Mode 1), a lawyer reviewing a merger agreement asks GenAI to identify every representation and warranty in the document. In organization mode (Mode 2), a litigator reviewing 50 depositions asks GenAI to construct a timeline from the testimony. The first locates material that already exists. The second arranges it into a usable structure. No new content is created in either case, and both uses are low-risk and should be actively encouraged, subject to modest verification controls. Firms that unduly restrict these use modes are leaving value on the table.

Mode 3: Summarization

Summarization (Mode 3) introduces selection risk. In this mode, GenAI chooses what to emphasize, include, and omit. Consider a lawyer preparing a board presentation on the results of an internal investigation. GenAI can condense dozens of witness interviews into key points and themes in minutes; however, a summary may focus on procedural detail while missing credibility issues that a lawyer would immediately recognize as material. The appropriate control is to mandate meaningful review by a lawyer with first-hand knowledge of the source material. A lawyer encountering the summary cold has no reliable way to evaluate what GenAI missed.

Mode 4: Candidate generation

Mode 4 is exploratory. A lawyer drafting a brief might ask GenAI to generate a list of potential arguments, propose alternative framings, or identify supporting authority. This candidate material expands options and accelerates iteration. The work product is not filing-ready and must be treated as provisional. GenAI can suggest, but a lawyer must decide.

The authority verification obligation at this stage deserves special emphasis. GenAI will identify cases, summarize holdings, and weave them into an argument structure. Thus, the output will read fluently and cite real-looking cases. However, a lawyer cannot assume the model has accurately characterized the holdings or context, and any authority cited in an external filing must be independently read and verified. GenAI can help find the cases, but a lawyer must read and apply them.

Mode 5: Editing and rewriting

In Mode 5, a lawyer asks GenAI to tighten a dense contract provision or restructure a wordy paragraph, risking, of course, unintended meaning change. An edit may read cleanly while subtly narrowing a representation, softening a covenant, or eliminating a carve-out. The revision risk is not hypothetical. The University of Minnesota study referenced above found that stronger performers produced worse work product when GenAI revised their independently produced memos. In this mode, a lawyer must confirm that the edit produced no shift in meaning and introduced no new factual assertions.

Mode 6: Critique and stress-testing

Mode 6 may be the most underutilized GenAI capability. Before filing a brief or presenting to regulators, a lawyer can ask GenAI to identify weaknesses in their argument. In this way, GenAI finds vulnerabilities before adversaries do; and unlike every other mode, the risk here runs in one direction. Lawyers who skip this step are missing one of GenAI’s core value propositions. Law firms’ governance frameworks should not merely permit it but actually require it in appropriate cases.

Mode 7: Evaluation and decision

The boundary against AI delegation becomes absolute when GenAI is asked to evaluate or decide. A lawyer advising a board on whether an event requires disclosure cannot delegate that determination to GenAI. A litigator assessing settlement value cannot outsource probability judgments because these are core expressions of professional responsibility. In this mode, GenAI may inform background analysis, but it may not substitute for lawyer judgment in making the call. This is a categorical prohibition — professional judgment cannot be delegated.

Going forward with GenAI

Law firm leaders who have moved their GenAI policy from restriction to mandate without governing the space between have not finished the job. Their lawyers are making consequential decisions about GenAI use every day without the guidance they need and deserve.

The use-mode framework presented above gives firm leadership a practical tool for filling that gap. It identifies the instances in which GenAI enhances legal work, where it introduces serious risk, and where professional judgment is non-negotiable. Firms that govern at that level will capture GenAI’s value; and those firms that do not will have policies that look serious but govern nothing important.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author in his individual capacity and do not represent the views, positions, or opinions of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners or clients, or the University of Wisconsin Law School.

Key highlights:

• • • AI simulation can replace the “repetition loop” used to train junior lawyers — AI is taking over the repetitive work junior lawyers used to learn from and replacing it with simulation-based learning.

• • • Three design pillars can determine whether AI simulations will work — The best simulation tools are built around three pillars: clear learning goals, realistic unpredictability, and specific feedback.

• • • AI simulation tools offer law students spaces to fail — For law students and junior lawyers, simulation creates a rare low-risk space to practice, make mistakes, and improve.

For decades, junior lawyers learned by doing. Assignments landed on their desks, senior lawyers marked them up, and judgment accumulated through repetition and proximity to experience. Now, as AI takes over these foundational tasks, that repetition loop is breaking down, according to , which underscores how junior lawyers are being thrust into higher-level advisory work far earlier in their careers. Unfortunately, this is occurring before they have developed the instinctive gut feel for judgement that only comes from years of experience.

and , co-founders of legal training platform , and , Executive Director at the Stanford Law School’s (liftlab) all say they see the need to build new educational programs and pedagogical tools. And these learning capabilities must be heavily focused on the specific skill sets that underlie the judgment of drafting and the judgment of taking a deposition, explains Dr. Ma.

AI and the cultivation of legal judgment

The broken repetition loop demands a substitute that underscored the implicit teaching of legal judgement in the early years of practice. Simulation-based learning is the profession’s most promising answer, and the idea predates AI.

Moot courts and mock trials have existed for years because of the stark difference between understanding something in theory and executing under pressure. Historically, however, simulation was costly as delivering experiential learning to small groups required significant expertise and time from multiple individuals. AI changes that equation by offering scalability at a level the legal profession never could access before. Indeed, role-playing is one of the greatest strengths of AI models, says Dr. Ma.

The traditional dynamic in legal education, in which law schools teach lawyers how to think, and law firms teach lawyers how to practice is no longer tenable as AI-enabled legal practice grows.

Legal judgment has always been difficult to define and nearly impossible to teach directly. Partners describe it as instinct or as something accumulated after enough transactions, depositions, and hard experience. AI simulation — if designed with enough precision to force real decision-making — can create the repetitive environments in which that judgment can be developed.

These AI simulation tools work best when designed around three pillars: i) clear learning goals; ii) realistic unpredictability; and iii) specific feedback.

First, a rubric tied to clear learning objectives needs to be established. According to AltaClaro’s Liles, this rubric must be paired with a feedback loop that’s anchored to specific skills and expected judgment calls. AltaClaro has been offering online, simulation-based training to the Am Law 200 for almost a decade and uses AI-powered feedback in its simulation tools.

Second, realistic unpredictability needs to be built in. For example, AltaClaro’s uses a lightly scripted framework that gives the witness a fixed truth and significant freedom within it, offering a scenario with enough unpredictability to force adaptation. This non-determinism makes AI outputs difficult to control in some contexts and becomes the source of realistic pressure in a simulation. The tool currently covers commercial and employment litigation deposition simulations, and there are plans to roll out other deposition scenarios, including IP, securities, mass tort/product liability, and antitrust over the next six months.

To further enable adaptation, Dr. Ma and her team inserted personality dials into liftlab’s deposition simulation tool. Instructors can push a witness toward the extreme of forgetfulness, evasiveness, or hostility. The user must find a path through behavior that no script could have anticipated. Repetitive use of these tools allows the instinctual learning of legal judgement. Similarly, DepoSim, which uses as its underlying engine, also allows for adjustments in witness cooperation or hostility and the opposing counsel’s aggressiveness.

Finally, feedback is the third critical design pillar. Both tools evaluate the user’s performance with feedback, which can include instances in which the attorney held their ground, or in which a vague answer was allowed to slide, or when an opening to gain ground was missed entirely. Feedback of this specificity is what allows simulations to most mimic practice and transform repetition into learning.

AI simulation tools work best when designed around three pillars: clear learning goals; realistic unpredictability; and specific feedback.

Of course, user experience is the design element that determines whether all of the above actually gets used. Shayesteh describes the range of ways the DepoSim tool is being used in practice to teach judgement. For example, one litigation chair ran the tool as a live teaching demonstration in front of 500 attorneys and paused to narrate decisions as events unfolded on screen. Also, mentor-mentee pairs are using the tool’s embedded feedback as the foundation for coaching conversations; and associates with upcoming real depositions are using the tool for targeted preparation.

AI simulations in law schools

The traditional dynamic in legal education, in which law schools teach lawyers how to think, and law firms teach lawyers how to practice is no longer tenable as AI-enabled legal practice grows. Dr. Ma says she sees simulation fitting naturally into existing experiential courses such as negotiation workshops, trial advocacy classes, and mediation seminars, serving as a between-class practice layer.

Of course, the greatest benefit of AI simulations in law schools is the creation of safe spaces for students to fail, Dr. Ma notes, describing how the law offers very few environments in which failure carries no consequences. Encountering transactions that go wrong, learning to manage impossible witnesses, and experiencing negotiations that collapse in a controlled setting are invaluable experiences for future lawyers — and now they can be experienced through simulations.

Although signs of progress are visible across the profession, resistance remains entrenched. “The profession needs to wake up and look at training as a really core strategic piece of the [learning] process,” Lilies says, adding that without intentional, rubric-based simulation infrastructure, the default is handing associates a set of AI tools and pointing them toward the work. This approach produces productivity without judgment and will result in lawyers generating AI output without a full understanding of what makes it right or wrong.

As AI tools proliferate across legal workflows, legal education needs to transform in tandem. “Law schools have to embrace this to really prepare students for the world that is three to four years away, by giving them the opportunity to increase reps and receive feedback based on a structured rubric and framework,” explains Shayesteh. “It is the best gift you can give them.”

You can find more about the

Key insights:

• • • AI as a force multiplier — Advanced analytics now reveal financial and behavioral anomalies that traditional monitoring systems routinely miss, giving executives a clearer view of emerging risks.

    • Geospatial and digital intelligence converge — Intelligent networks like OSINT, ADINT, and location-based data expose hidden networks and movement patterns, improving the detection of money laundering, trafficking, and smuggling operations.

    • Enterprise risk strategies must evolve — Organizations that integrate AI-driven intelligence across compliance, security, and operations can respond faster, reduce blind spots, and operate with greater resilience during high-risk events.

Illicit financial activity has always evolved faster than the systems designed to stop it. And today, the speed and sophistication of criminal networks are accelerating in ways that traditional compliance processes can no longer match. Major international events, such as the 2026 FIFA World Cup, bring millions of visitors, heightened commercial activity, and a surge in cross‑border movement, all creating fertile ground for exploitation.

AI as an intelligence multiplier

In this environment, financial institutions are on the front lines of detection and mitigation, and corporations must strengthen their ability to detect hidden risks. AI — particularly when combined with digital intelligence sources, behavioral analytics, and geo-referenced data — has emerged as the most powerful accelerator of that transformation.

Among all of this high-volume activity, AI is redefining how institutions detect early-stage indicators of illicit activity. Instead of relying solely on manual reviews or rule-based monitoring, organizations are increasingly deploying systems capable of analyzing vast volumes of structured and unstructured data at once. Three capabilities are shaping this new frontier:

Open-source intelligence (OSINT) — Criminal activity, even when intentionally concealed, tends to leave trace signals online. OSINT tools can examine social platforms, online marketplaces, media sources, forums, and digital discussion channels to uncover suspicious behavioral patterns, potential recruitment or exploitation signals, inconsistencies between official identification and online presence, or clusters of accounts linked by shared attributes. For many executives, OSINT has become an indispensable layer of enhanced due diligence, risk scoring, and early threat detection long before suspicious activity appears in financial records.

Advertising intelligence (ADINT) — ADINT focuses on metadata produced by mobile applications and digital advertising ecosystems. While it does not expose personal identifiers, it reveals mobility patterns, device behavior, and clustering anomalies. This type of intelligence becomes particularly powerful during large-scale events because of the ability to monitor the movement of devices across high-risk corridors, identify unusual concentrations of activity near event venues or border regions, or detect digital behavior consistent with organized criminal logistics. ADINT introduces a geographic and behavioral dimension to risk that enables institutions to understand not only who a customer appears to be, but where they go, how they behave, and whether those patterns align with legitimate economic activity.

AI-enhanced investigations — Modern platforms now merge financial data with OSINT and ADINT inputs and then apply descriptive and generative AI (GenAI) to draw connections that would be impossible to detect manually. These systems can classify digital communications by sentiment or intent, identify unusual financial behavior within seconds, convert large datasets into actionable intelligence summaries, translate and interpret foreign-language content, and map networks through recurring metadata or visual similarity. For decision-makers and organizational stakeholders, this shift represents a dramatic reduction in blind spots and a faster escalation pathway when emerging threats surface.

Why financial institutions and corporations must lead

Human trafficking, migrant smuggling, and money laundering cannot function at scale without the financial system. Even when exploitation occurs offline, profits eventually make their way into the formal economy through remittances, structured cash movements, shell companies, digital wallets, recruitment payments, or short-term rental arrangements.

AI enhanced investigations can help institutions identify subtle but meaningful indicators, such as coached or inconsistent customer responses, accounts linked through shared devices or addresses, rapid deposits followed by immediate withdrawals, purchases that do not correspond to a customer’s risk profile, payments directed to unverifiable recruiters, unusual patterns of short-term housing across multiple individuals, or transaction flows that follow established exploitation routes.

Illicit financial activity has always evolved faster than the systems designed to stop it. And today, the speed and sophistication of criminal networks are accelerating in ways that traditional compliance processes can no longer match.

All this information already exists inside institutional data today; AI simply makes it visible and usable much more easily and quickly.

While financial institutions are central in detecting illicit finance, companies across multiple sectors face heightened exposure during large events. Hospitality, logistics, transportation, construction, real estate, and digital services all see risk intensifying as demand surges and oversight becomes more complex.

Those senior leaders who responsible for operational continuity should integrate AI-powered monitoring into their internal controls. This can help detect unusual workforce recruitment patterns, unexpected badge or access activity, subcontractor behavior that conflicts with declared operations, repeated presence in high-risk zones, or digital communications that hint at coercive or exploitative conduct.

In the fight against illicit finance, technology is no longer optional. Indeed, it is our most powerful ally.

You can find out more about the fight against illicit finance and money laundering here

Key takeaways:

• • • Country-by-country reporting will only increase in complexity — Australia’s enhanced Country-by-country reporting (CbCR) requirements — reconciling taxes accrued against taxes credited — are a preview of where other high-scrutiny jurisdictions are heading, and companies need to build that explanatory analysis capability now, systematically, rather than scrambling later.

    • There has to be a shared narrative from corporate teams — The EU’s public CbCR is a reputational event, not just a filing. So that means tax, communications, and investor relations teams need a shared narrative before the data goes public — inconsistencies create exposure you do not want to manage reactively.

    • Rethink your filing jurisdiction in light of changes — If EU filing jurisdiction was chosen at initial implementation and never revisited, look again. Guidance has matured, and a more efficient or better-suited option may now be available.

WASHINGTON, DC — Among the many pressing topics discussed in detail at the recent , country-by-country reporting (CbCR) and its ability to reshape the corporate tax industry, certainly had its place. Between escalating local jurisdiction requirements, the , and for deeper explanatory disclosures, CbCR has quietly evolved from a transfer pricing filing obligation into something far more strategically consequential.

The floor is just the floor

The creation of the by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was intended as a minimum standard for countries. And now jurisdictions are increasingly layering additional requirements on top of the OECD’s basic template, resulting in a widening gap between the standard requirements and what tax authorities actually want.

Currently, Australia is the most pointed example. Australian tax authorities are now requiring multinational groups to go beyond the standard CbCR data fields and provide explanatory narratives that reconcile taxes accrued against taxes actually credited. This requires corporate tax departments to bridge the gap between financial statement accruals and their organizations’ cash tax positions in a way that is coherent, defensible, and consistent with positions taken elsewhere.

At the TEI event, panelists explained that for tax departments this will carry complex timing differences, deferred tax positions, or significant jurisdictional mismatches between booked and cash taxes. Indeed, this additional layer of scrutiny will need dedicated attention.

The broader signal matters: Australia will not be the last jurisdiction to move in this direction. So that means that tax departments should treat Australia’s approach as a leading indicator of where other high-scrutiny jurisdictions could be heading. Building the capability to produce this kind of explanatory analysis systematically — rather than scrambling jurisdiction by jurisdiction — would be the smarter long-term investment for corporate tax teams.

Public CbCR in the EU: The transparency ratchet has turned

For US-based multinationals with significant European operations, the EU’s public CbCR directive has fundamentally changed the calculus. Unlike the confidential tax authority filings most corporate tax departments are accustomed to, the EU’s public CbCR rules put organizations’ jurisdictional profit and tax data into the public domain, making it visible to investors, journalists, civil society groups, and organizations’ employees and customers.

The EU framework specifies which entities trigger the reporting obligation and which entity within the group is responsible for making the public filing. That scoping analysis is not always straightforward for complex multinational structures and getting it wrong could present both reputational and legal risk.

Choosing a filing jurisdiction is not purely an administrative decision — it is a choice that affects the regulatory environment that governs the disclosure, the language requirements, the timing, and the interpretive framework that applies to data.

For US-headquartered groups, the implications extend well beyond Europe. Public CbCR data is now being read alongside US disclosures, reporting on ESG activities, and public narratives about tax governance. Inconsistencies, including those technically explainable, could create unwanted noise about the company. This is clearly another reason why the tax function should partner across the business — in this case with the communications team — to make they both are aligned to tell the CbCR story instead of being caught off guard by a journalist or an investor during an earnings call.

Questions that US multinationals should be asking

Fortunately, US multinationals with multiple EU subsidiaries are not required to file public CbCR reports in every EU member state in which they have a presence. Instead, under the EU framework, a qualifying ultimate parent or standalone undertaking can satisfy the public disclosure requirement through a single filing in one EU member state, provided the relevant conditions are met. Germany and the Netherlands have emerged as two of the more popular choices for this consolidated filing approach, given their well-developed regulatory frameworks and the depth of available guidance on what compliant disclosure looks like in practice.

The strategic implication is meaningful. Choosing a filing jurisdiction is not purely an administrative decision — it is a choice that affects the regulatory environment that governs the disclosure, the language requirements, the timing, and the interpretive framework that applies to data. Corporate tax departments that defaulted to a filing jurisdiction early in the EU implementation process should take a fresh look. Regulatory guidance has matured significantly, and there may be a more efficient or better-suited path available than the one originally chosen.

The uncomfortable divergence

There is a notable irony in the current environment. Domestically, the IRS and U.S. Treasury’s 2025-2026 Priority Guidance Plan reflects an explicit focus on deregulation and burden reduction, detailing dozens of projects aimed at reducing compliance costs for US businesses. Meanwhile, the international compliance environment has moved in the opposite direction, adding disclosure layers, explanatory requirements, and public transparency obligations that many US businesses cannot avoid simply because they are headquartered in the United States.

This divergence has a direct implication for how tax departments allocate resources and make the internal case for investment in international compliance infrastructure. The burden internationally is not going down — indeed, it is intensifying — and that argument is now backed by concrete examples rather than projections.

3 things worth doing now

There are several actions that corporate tax teams should consider, including:

Audit CbCR data quality with Australia’s enhanced requirements in mind — If you cannot readily reconcile taxes accrued to taxes credited at the jurisdictional level, that gap needs to be closed before it becomes an authority inquiry.

Revisit EU filing jurisdiction strategy — If your jurisdictional decision was made at the time of initial implementation and has not been reviewed since, it is worth a fresh look before the next reporting cycle.

Develop an internal narrative around public CbCR data before it circulates externally — Your company’s tax story should not be a surprise to the corporate teams involved in communications, investor relations, or ESG — and in today’s world, assuming such news stays quiet is no longer a safe assumption.

While CbCR started as a tool for tax authorities, it today has become something more visible, more public, and more consequential than that — and that trajectory is not reversing any time soon.

You can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s

Key takeaways:

• • • AI frameworks need to keep up with implementation — While AI governance frameworks are being developed and enacted globally, their effectiveness depends on enforceable mechanisms within domestic justice systems.

    • Access to justice is essential for trustworthy AI regulation — Rights and protections are only meaningful if individuals can understand, challenge, and seek remedies for AI-driven decisions. Without operational access, governance frameworks risk remaining theoretical.

    • People-centered justice and human rights must anchor AI governance — Embedding human rights standards and ensuring equal access to justice in AI regulation strengthens public trust, accountability, and the credibility of both public institutions and private companies.

AI governance is accelerating across global, national, and local levels. As public investment in AI infrastructure expands, new oversight bodies are emerging to assess safety, risk, and accountability. The global policy conversation has from principles to the implementation of meaningful guardrails and AI governance frameworks, which legislators now are drafting and enacting.

These developments reflect growing recognition that AI systems demand structured oversight and a shift from voluntary safeguards and standards to institutionalized governance. One critical dimension remains underdeveloped, however: how do these frameworks function in practice? Are they enforceable? Do they provide accountability? Do they ensure equal access?

AI governance will not succeed on the strength of international declarations or regulatory design alone; rather, domestic justice systems will determine whether it works. At this intersection, the connection between AI governance and access to justice becomes real.

In early February, leaders across government, the legal sector, international organizations, industry, and civil society convened for an expert discussion. The following reflections attempt to build on that dialogue and its urgency.

From principles to enforcement

Over the past decade, AI governance has evolved from hypothetical ethical guidelines to voluntary commitments, binding regulatory frameworks, and risk-based approaches. Due to these game-changing advancements, however, many past attempts to provide structure and governance have been quickly outpaced by technology and are insufficient without enforcement mechanisms. As Anoush Rima Tatevossian of The Future Society observed: “The judicial community should have a role to play not only in shaping policies, but in how they are implemented.”

Frameworks establish expectations, while courts and dispute resolution mechanisms interpret rules, test rights, evaluate harm, assign responsibility, and determine remedies. If individuals are not empowered to safeguard their rights and cannot access these mechanisms, governance frameworks remain theoretical or are casually ignored.

This challenge reflects a broader structural constraint. Even without AI, legal systems struggle to meet demand. In the United States alone, 92% of people do not receive the help they need in accessing their rights in the justice system. Introducing AI into this environment without strengthening access can risk widening, rather than narrowing, the justice gap.

There’s growing recognition that AI systems demand structured oversight and a shift from voluntary safeguards and standards to institutionalized governance.

Justice systems serve as the operational core of AI governance. By inserting the rule of law into unregulated areas, they provide the infrastructure that enables accountability by interpreting regulatory provisions in specific cases, assessing whether AI-related harms violate legal standards, allocating responsibility across public and private actors, and providing accessible pathways for redress.

These frameworks also generate critical feedback. Disputes involving AI systems expose gaps in transparency, fairness, and accountability. Legal professionals see where governance frameworks first break down in real-world conditions, often long before policymakers do. As a result, these frameworks function as an early signal of policy effectiveness and rights protections.

Importantly, AI governance does not require entirely new legal foundations. Human rights frameworks already provide standards for legality, non-discrimination, due process, and access to remedy, and these standards apply directly to AI-enabled decision-making. “AI can assist judges but must never replace human judgment, accountability, or due process,” said Kate Fox Principi, Lead on the Administration of Justice at the United Nations (UN) Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), during the February panel.

Clearly, rights are only meaningful when individuals can exercise them — this constraint is not conceptual, it’s operational. Systems must be understandable, affordable, and responsive, and institutions should be capable of evaluating complex, technology-enabled disputes.

Trust, markets & accountability

Governance frameworks that do not account for these dynamics risk entrenching inequities rather than mitigating them. An individual’s ability to understand, challenge, and seek a remedy for automated decisions determines whether governance is credible. A people-centered justice approach, as established in the , asks whether individuals can meaningfully engage with the system, not just whether rules exist. For example, women face documented barriers to accessing justice in any jurisdiction. AI systems trained on biased data can replicate or amplify existing disparities in employment, financial services, healthcare, and criminal justice.

“Institutional agreement rings hollow when billions of people experience governance as remote, technocratic, and unresponsive to their actual lives,” said Alfredo Pizarro of the Permanent Mission of Costa Rica to the UN. “People-centered justice becomes essential.”

AI systems already shape outcomes across employment, financial services, housing, and justice. Entrepreneurs, law schools, courts, and legal services organizations are already building AI-enabled tools that help people navigate legal processes and assert their rights more effectively. Governance design will determine whether these tools help spread access to justice and or introduce new barriers.

Private companies play a central role in developing and deploying AI systems. Their products shape economic and social outcomes at scale. For them, trust is not abstract; it is a success metric. “Innovation depends on trust,” explained Iain Levine, formerly of Meta’s Human Rights Policy Team. “Without trust, products will not be adopted.” And trust, in turn, depends on enforceability and equal access to remedy.

AI governance will succeed or fail based on access

As Pizarro also noted, justice provides “normative continuity across technological rupture.” Indeed, these principles already exist within international human rights law and people-centered justice; although they precede the advent of autonomous systems, they provide standards for evaluating discrimination, surveillance, and procedural fairness, and remain durable as new challenges to upholding justice and the rule of law emerge.

People-centered justice was not designed for legal systems addressing AI-related harms, but its outcome-driven orientation remains durable as new justice problems emerge.

The current stage presents an opportunity to align AI governance with access to justice from the outset. Beyond well-drafted rules, we need systems that people can use. And that means that any effective governance requires coordination between policymakers, legal professionals, and the public.

You can find other installments ofĚýour Scaling Justice blog seriesĚýhere

Key takeaways:

• • • Strategic collaboration is becoming a defining strength for the region — Latin American organizations are realizing that progress in AI accelerates when they combine forces by linking industry expertise, academic talent, and public‑sector support.

    • AI initiatives rooted in real local challenges are gaining global relevance — By developing solutions grounded in the region’s own structural needs, whether in infrastructure, finance, agriculture, education, or mobility, many LatAm firms are producing technologies that are both highly impactful and naturally scalable.

    • Demonstrating clear outcomes is becoming fundamental — Organizations that show concrete operational improvements, measurable efficiencies, or stronger customer outcomes are strengthening their position with investors and partners.

In recent years, Latin America has experienced significant growth in investments related to AI, accounting for . This is strikingly low given that the region makes up around 6.6% of global GDP, highlighting the region’s opportunities to scale AI initiatives even further. Although there are notable differences among countries, Mexico and Brazil — the two largest LatAm economies — stand out for their volume of AI projects and funding, followed by other nations such as Chile, Colombia, and Argentina.

By recognizing the region’s strengths — which include cost-effective operations, access to data, clean energy, and public support — the region’s businesses can better position themselves and design strategies to draw in international investors that may be increasingly seeking promising locations for AI development.

Lessons from LatAm’s AI success stories

Latin America has produced remarkable AI success stories that can serve as models to build confidence among investors. These cases — involving companies that attracted substantial investment and achieved growth — demonstrate valuable best practices that range from technological innovation to working with governments and corporations. Some of these best practices include:

Building strategic alliances

The journey of innovation rarely unfolds in isolation. At times, the presence of large, established companies, whether local industry leaders or multinationals, has served as a catalyst for AI projects. The experience of that specializes in AI-powered agricultural irrigation, proves it. Now, Kilimo is partnering with EdgeConneX, a data center company based in the United States, on a community .

Academia, too, can be woven into this narrative. Collaborations with research centers or universities offer scientific credibility and connect ventures with emerging talent. In Mexico, AI startups often originate within university settings — such as computer vision projects from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), for instance — and maintain agreements that sustain ongoing innovation and technical progress even with modest resources. And academic validations, whether in published papers or conference accolades, tend to resonate with foreign investors. Indeed, the emergence of this ecosystem that features early corporate clients and academic mentors frequently lends a distinctive appeal for those seeking investment.

Focusing on local problems with global impact

Within Latin America, certain issues prove especially relevant in situations in which AI solutions intersect with sectors renowned for regional strengths, such as fintech and financial inclusion, agrotech optimizing agriculture, and foodtech drawing on local ingredients. The experience of Chilean food startup NotCo — in which and subsequently exported — suggests how innovations rooted in local context may generate broader attention.

By addressing needs in urban transport, education, mining and related areas, local LatAm companies can provide access to homegrown data and users, which can further refine technology and open pathways for investors into similar emerging markets. When AI solutions respond to genuine pain points rather than mere novelty, momentum often builds more quickly, and the model finds validation among that evaluate investments.

Showing results and AI ROI early on

Questions linger for many executives . Evidence of clear metrics like cost savings, sales growth, or error reduction can prove persuasive, especially when complemented by success stories from local clients.

Recent studies show that companies ; and such figures tend to reassure those considering investment by illustrating tangible improvements. Testimonials or independent validations, such as a university study, can further illuminate achievements.

The act of quantifying impact — whether in efficiency, revenue, or other relevant KPIs — has a way of transforming perceptions from uncertainty toward clarity.

Leveraging government incentives and collaborations

Many Latin American nations have put forth support programs for AI and tech projects, such as non-repayable funds, soft loans, and tax benefits for innovation illustrated in , , , or the .

Public financing, when present, often acts as a stamp of validation for private investors. For example, this trust extended to Brazilian startups receiving Finep support for AI health projects, which in turn can shift perceptions for foreign ventures capitals. Engagement in government pilots, such as smart city initiatives or solutions for ministries, provides valuable exposure. In such contexts, public-private partnerships and incentives seem to act as quiet levers for growth and legitimacy.

Seeking smart and diversified financing

Financial strategies in Latin America have been shaped by the interplay of local and foreign capital. Local funds often bring insights and patience, while foreign funds may offer larger investments and global scaling experience. Ownership dilution sometimes accompanies the arrival of strategic investors, whose networks can prove invaluable, such as . Programs like 500 Startups, Y Combinator, MassChallenge, and international competitions have ushered LatAm AI startups such as Heru, Rappi, Bitso, and Clip into new rounds of capital following increased exposure.

Efficiency in capital management, which can be demonstrated with lean burn rates and milestone achievement with limited resources, signals an ability to execute within the realities of LatAm, which may enhance the appeal for future investments. The cultivation of relationships and responsible stewardship of capital frequently matters as much as the funds themselves, suggesting that the value of mentorship, contacts, and reputation is often intertwined with deepening financial support.

Unlocking AI Investment

By applying these principles, Latin American companies have achieved a better position to attract AI investments to their projects and help position the region as a viable destination for technology capital. These recent experiences show that when a LatAm company combines innovation, talent, and strategy — while communicating its story well — it can win over global and local investors alike. Each of the best practices noted above is based on real lessons: international alliances (NotCo with US funds), leveraging incentives (Brazilian companies funded by Finep), talent formation (Santander and Microsoft programs), focus on ROI (successful use cases that convince boards), and more.

Latin America has challenges but also unique advantages. Companies that manage to navigate this environment intelligently will increase their chances of securing the financing needed to innovate and grow. By doing so, they will contribute to a virtuous circle in which each new success attracts more investment to the region and opens doors for the next generation of LatAm AI ventures.

You can find more about the challenges and opportunities in the Latin American region here

Key takeaways:

• • • There is a widening gap between AI ambition and readiness — The gap between AI ambition and data readiness is widening, making the adoption of an adaptable data foundry essential for scalable, explainable, and compliant AI outcomes.

    • A data foundry model directly addresses the root cause — A data foundry model enables organizations to industrialize data production, automate compliance, and ensure consistent data lineage, thereby overcoming the limitations of brittle, legacy data architectures.

    • Incorporate the data core into your AI planning — Reinventing the data core is now a strategic imperative for those enterprises that aim to thrive in 2026 and beyond, as agentic AI, regulatory demands, and integration complexity accelerate.

This article is the third and final installment in a 3-part blog series exploring how organizations can reset and empower their data core.

A defining theme of this year so far is the widening distance between organizational ambition and data readiness. Leaders want the hype and inherent capabilities they believe are instantly contained within agentic AI — automated compliance, predictive integration for M&A, and decision-intelligence pipelines that reduce operational friction.

Without a data foundry, however, much of that will be impossible. Instead, workflows will remain brittle, AI agents will hallucinate under inconsistent semantics, and data lineage will break down across federated sources. Further, without a data foundry, regulatory mappings involved with the Financial Data Transparency Act (FDTA) and the Standard Business Reporting (SBR) framework cannot be automated, cross-functional insights will require manual reconciliation, and auditability will collapse under scrutiny.

This is not a failure of leadership. It is a failure of architectural design to recognize the congealment of data as a predecessor to technologies and the critical priorities of data security, auditability, and lineage.

For decades, organizations built monolithic systems that were optimized for stability and reporting. Today’s world demands modularity, continuous adaptation, and agent-driven interoperability. Architecture has shifted from build and operate to build and evolve. This is precisely what a data foundry enables.

Why reinvention can no longer wait

Throughout 2025 and now into the early months of 2026, data and AI have quietly shifted from innovation topics to enterprise constraints. Leaders across regulated markets are starting to recognize that the obstacles limiting their AI ambitions are neither mysterious nor technical — they are structural. These obstacles sit inside the data core, waiting inside the silent architecture that determines whether any form of automation, intelligence, or compliance can scale beyond a pilot.

The data bears this out. When you examine the work coming from Tier-1 research bodies, supervisory institutions, and global transformation benchmarks, a consistent narrative emerges beneath the headlines: AI is accelerating, regulation is hardening, and integration demands are expanding. Moreover, organizational data remains pinned to assumptions that were forged in static, pre-AI operating environments. This gap is not theoretical; rather, it is measurable, persistent, and directly correlated to business performance.

Let’s look at the AI results first. Across industries, organizations continue to experience a familiar pattern: early promise, limited adoption, and rapid degradation once the model encounters inconsistent semantics or fragmented lineage. Global studies show that the vast majority of enterprise AI initiatives still struggle to reach full production maturity, and among those that do, many encounter performance drift within the first year.

The driver is remarkably consistent. It is not the sophistication of the model nor the skill of the data science team — it is the quality, clarity, and traceability of the data that is feeding the system.

Taken together, these signals deliver a clear message. The gap between AI ambition and data readiness is widening, not narrowing. This is why the data foundry conversation matters now. It is not an abstract architectural concept. It is a response to the full stack of quantitative pressures the market has been telegraphing for years — costs rising, compliance hardening, AI accelerating, and integration straining under inconsistent semantics and fragile lineage.

A data foundry model directly addresses the root cause of this by industrializing the creation of consistent, reusable, explainable data products that can fuel agentic AI, support regulatory defensibility, and accelerate enterprise reinvention.

The numbers point to a simple conclusion. Reinvention is no longer optional, and the window to address the data core before agentic AI becomes standard practice is narrow and closing. The organizations that act now will be the ones that define what compliant, explainable, interoperable AI looks like in the next decade. Those that defer the work will find themselves restructuring under pressure rather than reinventing by choice.

This is the inflection point. In truth, the quantitative signals have made the case more clearly than a multitude of strategy narratives ever could.

The data foundry: A model for continuous alignment

Unsurprisingly, agentic AI introduces new, more demanding requirements, including:

• • • machine-interpretable semantics;
    • context-preserving lineage across federated systems;
    • decomposition of enterprise knowledge into reusable data products;
    • dynamic trust-scoring tied to source reliability and timeliness;
    • automated compliance overlays and regulatory logic; and
    • cross-domain metadata orchestration.

These capabilities are not optional, and they are non-negotiable. Indeed, they determine whether AI elevates risk or mitigates it, whether it accelerates productivity or introduces unrecoverable inconsistencies. And they determine whether AI augments decision quality or produces volatility.

A data foundry shifts organizations from artisanal, one-off data preparation and toward industrialized data production, in which patterns replace pipelines, and building blocks replace custom engineering. This shift will mean that lineage is generated, not documented; semantics are governed, not patched; and compliance is automated, not reconstructed. In this way, reuse becomes the default, not the exception.

In fact, this process is analogous to manufacturing. Instead of producing bespoke components for each need, the enterprise creates standardized, high-fidelity data assets that can be assembled into any workflow, any AI use case, and any reporting requirement.

A data foundry becomes the quiet architecture behind every future capability, making these capabilities systematic rather than ad-hoc. The chart below showcases the progressive build-up using a data factory, beginning with data intake and harmonization and ending with the AI agent orchestration and reusable data products that learn from their deployment.

Unfortunately, organizations are still building increasingly advanced AI decisioning and efficiency solutions on top of an aging and brittle data foundation. The results are predictable: stalled initiatives, compliance exposure, and stakeholder frustration. Additionally, instead of asking why, organizations keep adding more tools — more dashboards, more cloud services, more AI pilots, and more flavors of transformation.

Clearly, enterprises aren’t dealing with an AI problem. They’re dealing with a data alignment problem disguised as progress within fragmented, AI enclosures.

Reinvention starts at the data core

For more than a decade, firms across regulated industries have repeated the same mantra: Data is our most critical asset. When you peel back the layers or when you sit in board review sessions or integration meetings or regulatory remediation audits, however, the evidence does not match the rhetoric.

Reinvention is no longer optional. Instead, it is the starting point for meeting the demands of 2026 and beyond. The institutions that thrive will be those that understand that the data core is not a technical asset — it is the operational backbone of the enterprise. Indeed, the institutions that succeed will be those that recognize the truth early: AI is an output, and the data core is the strategy. And the organizations able to industrialize their data — through a foundry model, through AXTent, through repeatable semantic structures — will be the ones leading innovation, reducing compliance risk, accelerating M&A synergies, and achieving enterprise-wide reinvention.

In the end, the real question isn’t whether AI will transform business; the question is whether the data foundation will allow it. And the answer is rebuilding your data core so AI can actually deliver the outcomes your organization needs — and that work begins now.

You can find more blog postsĚýby this author here

Key insights:

• • • Considering courts’ approach — Although many courts do not interact with litigants prior to filings, courts can explore how to help court staff discuss AI use with litigants.

    • Risk of generic AI tools — AI use in legal settings can’t be simply categorized as safe or risky; jurisdiction, timing, and procedure are vital factors, making generic AI tools unreliable for court-specific needs.

    • Specialty AI tools require testing — Purpose-built court AI tools offer a safer alternative for litigants, yet these require development and extensive testing.

Self-represented litigants have always pieced together legal help from whatever sources they can access. Now that AI is part of that mix, courts are working to help people use this advanced technology responsibly without implying an endorsement of any particular tool or even the use of AI.

Many litigants cannot afford an attorney; others may distrust the representation they have or may not know where to begin. In any case, people need a meaningful way to interact with the legal system. Used carefully and responsibly, AI can support access to justice by helping self-represented litigants understand their options, organize information, and draft documents, while still requiring litigants to verify their information and consult official court rules and resources.

These issues were discussed in a recent webinar, , hosted by . The panel explored the potential benefits of AI for access to justice and the operational challenges of integrating AI into public-facing guidance for litigants.

The problem with “Just ask AI”

Angela Tripp of the Legal Services Corporation noted that people handling legal matters on their own have long relied on a mix of resources, “some of which were designed for that purpose, and some of which were not.” AI is simply a new tool in that environment, she added. The primary challenge is that court processes are rule-based and time-sensitive; and a mistake can mean missing a deadline, submitting the wrong document, or misunderstanding a requirement that affects the case.

Access to justice also requires more than just access to information in general. Court users need information that is relevant, complete, accurate, and up to date. Generic AI systems, such as most public-facing tools, are trained on broad internet text may not reliably deliver that level of specificity for a particular court, case type, or stage of a proceeding. In these cases, jurisdiction, timing, and procedure all matter. Unfortunately, AI can omit key steps or emphasize the wrong issues, and self-represented litigants may not have the legal experience to recognize what is missing.

At the same time, AI offers several potential benefits to self-represented litigants. It can explain concepts in plain language, help users structure a narrative, and produce a first draft faster than many people can on their own. The challenge is aligning those strengths with the precision that court processes demand.

A strategic pivot: from teaching litigants to equipping staff

In the webinar, Stacey Marz, Administrative Director of the Alaska Court System, described her team’s early efforts to give self-represented litigants clear guidance about safer and riskier uses of AI, including examples of how to properly prompt generative AI queries.

The team tried to create traffic light categories that would simplify decision-making; however, they found this approach very challenging despite several draft efforts to create useful guidance. Indeed, AI use can shift from low-risk to high-risk depending on context, and it was hard to provide examples without sounding like the court was endorsing a tool or sending people down a path to which the court could not guarantee results.

The group ultimately shifted to a more practical approach — training the people who already help litigants. The new guidance targets public-facing staff such as clerks, librarians, and self-help center workers. Instead of teaching litigants how to prompt AI, it equips staff to have informed, consistent conversations when litigants bring AI-generated drafts or AI-based questions to the counter.

The framework emphasizes acknowledgment without endorsement. It suggests language such as:

“Many people are exploring AI tools right now. I’m happy to talk with you about how they may or may not fit with court requirements.”

From there, staff can explain why court filings require extra caution and direct users to court-specific resources.

This approach also assumes good faith. A flawed filing is often a sincere attempt to comply, and a litigant may not realize that an AI output is incomplete or incorrect.

Purpose-built tools take time

The webinar also discussed how courts also are exploring purpose-built AI tools, including judicial chatbots designed around court procedures and grounded in verified information. Done well, these tools can reduce common problems associated with generic AI systems, such as jurisdiction mismatch, outdated requirements, or fabricated or hallucinated citations.

However, building reliable court-facing AI demands significant time and testing. Marz shared Alaska’s experience, noting that what the team expected to take three months took more than a year because of extensive refinement and evaluation. The reason is straightforward: Court guidance must be highly accurate, and errors can materially harm someone’s legal interests. In fact, even after careful testing, Alaska still included cautionary language, recognizing that no system can guarantee perfect answers in every situation.

The path forward

Legal Services’ Tripp highlighted a central risk: Modern AI tools can be clear, confident, and easy to trust, which can lead people to over-rely on them. And courts have to recognize this balance. Courts are not trying to prevent AI use; rather, many are working toward realistic norms that treat AI as a drafting and organizing aid but require litigants to verify claims against official court sources and seek human support when possible.

Marz also emphasized that courts should generally assume filings reflect a litigant’s best effort, including in those cases in which AI contributed to confusion. The goal is education and correction rather than punishment, especially for people navigating complex processes without representation.

Some observers describe this moment as an early AOL phase of AI, akin to the very early days of the world wide web — widely used, evolving quickly, and uneven in its reliability. That reality makes clear guidance and consistent messaging more important, not less.

This shift among courts from teaching litigants to use AI to teaching court staff and other helpers how to talk to litigants about AI reflects a practical effort on the part of courts to reduce the risk of harm while expanding access to understandable information.

As is becoming clearer every day, AI can make legal processes feel more navigable by helping self-represented litigants draft, summarize, and prepare; and for courts to realize that value requires clear guardrails, court-specific verification, and careful implementation, especially when a missed detail can change the outcome of a case.

You can find out more about how AI and other advanced technologies are impactingĚýbest practices in courts and administrationĚýhere