Your Compliance Program, Always Audit-Ready
The compliance-ops copilot for SOX and SOC 2 — posture, coverage, evidence-gap, and finding answers across your controls and review campaigns. Create a control or launch a campaign via a diff.
HOW IT WORKS
How it keeps a program audit-ready
From a posture question to a launched review cycle — using the same control register, review-frequency schedule, and reviewer assignments you already run. It works the queue before review windows lapse and findings go overdue.
1. Detect
A control goes overdue for review, a campaign's attestation items sit pending, a framework has un-imported controls, a finding passes its remediation date. The agent reads the signal when you ask.
2. Decide
Ranks by due date, severity, and review-window proximity. Surfaces the right gap — no evidence, overdue for review, missing framework control, open finding — for the question you asked.
3. Act
Answers read-only questions inline. For a new control or a review campaign, it parses a draft, shows a diff preview, and waits for your Confirm before anything is written.
4. Log
Every read and every gated write lands in one audit trail — requesting user, tool, parameters. SOX and SOC 2 evidence ready by default.
WRITES YOU CONTROL
Two write paths. Both gated.
The seven read tools answer freely — posture, coverage, gaps, findings, your own tasks. The two writes never fire on their own. The agent proposes; you confirm the diff before it commits.
Read — ask anything
Posture, control register, campaigns, your pending items, evidence gaps, framework coverage, findings. Seven read tools, business-scoped, no confirmation needed.
Confirm — every write
Create a control or launch a review campaign and the agent dispatches through the controller, renders a diff preview of exactly what changes, and waits for one Confirm tap.
Routed — through the app
Confirmed writes run the same controller path the app uses — its authorization and tenant scoping apply. No direct database writes, no parallel store.
Every answer cites the control or campaign so you can verify
Posture answers name the framework and the due window. Gap answers name each control by reference code and the reason — "no evidence" or "overdue for review". Coverage answers name the framework and the specific catalog controls you haven't imported yet. Nothing is a black box.
- "COBIT-AC-1 · overdue for review" on controls past their next-review date.
- "no evidence linked" on active controls with nothing backing them.
- "SOC 2 · 6 controls not yet imported" on framework-coverage answers.
- Reference-code citation on every row — which control, which framework, which campaign.
One copilot — compliance-ops' home for the whole program
Compliance Hub AI is the compliance team's conversational front door. Ask "how are we doing" and it returns posture across controls, campaigns, and pending items in one shot. Ask "what's missing for SOC 2" and it returns coverage plus the un-imported catalog controls. Ask "what findings are overdue" and it ranks them by severity. When you're ready to act, it drafts the control or campaign and hands you a diff to confirm.
- Posture in one shot — due-soon and overdue controls, open and overdue campaigns, pending items.
- Coverage on demand — imported vs missing controls per framework, with the named gaps.
- Evidence-gap scan — active controls with no linked evidence and controls overdue for review.
- Findings, ranked — open and overdue remediation items by severity and due date.
- Confirm-gated writes — create a control or launch a campaign from the same conversation, with a diff preview.
Where Compliance Workflows Break Down
Compliance Hub AI attacks the specific failures that turn a healthy SOX or SOC 2 program into a scramble the week before the auditor arrives — without changing the control register, review-frequency schedule, or attestation flow the compliance team already runs.
Nobody Knows The Real Posture Until The Auditor Asks
How many controls are overdue for review? How many campaigns are open and behind? How many attestation items are still pending? The answer lives across three tables nobody cross-references until the readiness meeting — by which point the gaps are already gaps.
Controls Go Overdue For Review And No One Notices
The quarterly access review was due three weeks ago. The control still says "active" because nobody opened the register. The miss only surfaces when an auditor walks the control and finds the last attestation is four months old.
Evidence Gaps Hide Until Sampling Finds Them
A control exists. The review happens. But nothing is linked as evidence — no cert, no change record, no uploaded file. The control looks healthy on the register and fails the moment the auditor samples it, because there's nothing to show.
Framework Coverage Is A Guess
"Are we covered for SOC 2?" Someone imported a starter set of controls in 2024 and never reconciled against the full catalog. Which of the prebuilt SOC 2, SOX ITGC, ISO 27001, or HIPAA controls are still missing? Nobody can say without a manual crosswalk.
Findings Drift Past Their Remediation Date
A review flags a deficiency. A finding gets created. An owner and a due date get set. Then it sits — because the finding lives in the app and the owner lives in their inbox, and the two never reconcile until the finding is months overdue.
Launching A Review Cycle Is A Manual Chore
The annual access review needs a campaign per control, items fanned out per subject, owners assigned, a due date set. It's mechanical, it's repetitive, and it gets deferred — so the cycle starts late and the lock-on-completion deadline gets tight.
Compliance Hub AI At A Glance
Compliance Hub AI
Control register, attestation campaigns, framework coverage, audit-grade trail.
Inside Compliance Hub AI — The Actual Capabilities
Every block below maps to a real tool the agent uses against your Compliance Hub records. 9 tools in all — 7 read-only; 2 writes (Create control, Launch review campaign) are confirmation-gated and dispatch through the app's controller. Posture is fast; the attestation workflow stays in the Compliance Hub app.
Posture & Register — Live Readiness, Controls, Campaigns
Surface where the program stands — overall posture in one shot, the control register filtered by framework, category, or status, and the review campaigns by status or type. The view the compliance lead pulls before the readiness meeting.
- Posture summary — due-soon and overdue controls, open and overdue campaigns, pending and flagged items in one call.
- Control register — the register, filterable by framework, category, and status (active / due-soon / overdue / retired).
- Review campaigns — attestation cycles by status (open / overdue / completed) and type (access / cert / change / general).
- Completion at a glance — each campaign reports items total, items completed, and completion percent.
Gaps & Coverage — Where The Program Is Exposed
Find what's missing before the auditor does — active controls with no evidence, controls overdue for review, and framework coverage against the prebuilt SOC 2, SOX ITGC, ISO 27001, and HIPAA catalogs (with the specific controls you haven't imported).
- Evidence-gap scan — active controls with no linked evidence and controls overdue for review, optionally scoped to a framework.
- Framework coverage — imported vs total vs gap per framework, plus the named catalog controls you haven't imported yet.
- Crosswalk-aware — coverage reads the seeded SOC 2 / SOX ITGC / ISO 27001 / HIPAA frameworks and their control catalogs.
- Evidence is polymorphic — a linked live cert / change / form record or an uploaded file both count, so the gap scan reflects real proof.
Your Work & Findings — Pending Items And Remediation
The personal and remediation views — the attestation items assigned to you that are still pending, and the open or overdue findings ranked by severity. The two lists that turn "what do I owe" and "what's unresolved" into a one-line answer.
- My pending items — the review items assigned to you that are still pending, with their campaign and due date.
- Findings list — open and overdue findings, filterable by status and severity, overdue first.
- Campaign-aware — each pending item shows whether its campaign is locked (completed) so you know what's still actionable.
- Finding counts — every findings answer returns the open and overdue totals so the headline number is right there.
Writes — Create A Control, Launch A Campaign
The two writes the agent supports, both gated. Describe a control in chat and the agent parses a draft (reference code, title, framework, category, review frequency, owner, due date) — or name a control and ask to launch its review campaign — then it shows a diff preview and waits for your Confirm before anything is written.
- Create control — risky write. Adds a control to the register via the controller. Renders a field diff and requires Confirm.
- Launch review campaign — risky write. Builds a draft review campaign from a control. Requires Confirm.
- Controller-replay, not direct database writes — both writes dispatch through the app's controller, so its authorization and tenant scoping apply.
- Attestation workflow unchanged — a launched campaign enters the same draft → active → completed (locked) lifecycle the app already runs.
Outcomes Teams Can Measure
The agent is built to compress the time to answer "what's our posture", surface evidence gaps and overdue controls before sampling finds them, and make launching a review cycle a confirmed one-liner. Measure against your pre-agent baseline.
- Time to a posture answer — seconds from the question to a posture summary vs minutes cross-referencing tables.
- Overdue-control lead time — days between a control going overdue for review and the team catching it.
- Evidence-gap closure — share of active controls with linked evidence, trending against baseline.
- Framework coverage — imported vs catalog controls per framework, closing toward complete.
- Finding aging — share of findings closed before their remediation date vs slipping overdue.
2 Gated Writes, Attestation Workflow Always Enforced
Compliance Hub AI has 9 tools. 7 are read-only (posture summary, control register, campaigns, your pending items, evidence gaps, framework coverage, findings). 2 writes — Create control and Launch review campaign — are flagged risky, dispatch through the app's controller, and require an explicit Confirm on a diff preview. The draft → active → completed (locked) campaign lifecycle takes over from there.
- 2 risky write tools — Create control and Launch review campaign — both render a diff preview and require Confirm.
- Controller-replay writes — dispatched through the app's controller, so authorization and tenant scoping apply — no direct database writes.
- Permission-aware — control creation and campaign launch respect the app's manage gate; a member without rights gets a relayed permission error.
- Audit trail on every action — read or write, every tool call logs the requesting user, the tool used, and the parameters.
WHAT TEAMS TRY INSTEAD
The four alternatives — and why none of them connect the control register to evidence, framework coverage, and the attestation workflow
Compliance teams have piloted GRC tooling for years. The honest gap is that most options live in a separate platform, surface controls but not live evidence, or track findings but never reconcile them against the catalog and the review cycle you actually run.
Pasting the control register into ChatGPT, Claude, or Copilot
General-purpose AI summarizing a copied spreadsheet of controls
- Answers against the live register, campaigns, and findings — not a stale paste that's wrong by lunch
- Reads polymorphic evidence (linked certs, changes, forms, or uploaded files) — no manual reconciliation
- Stays inside the tenant boundary so control, finding, and personnel detail never leave the perimeter
Vanta AI / Drata AI / OneTrust copilots
Vendor-trapped GRC AI behind a separate compliance platform
- Lives where the team already works — no separate GRC sign-in for a posture question
- Reads control owners and evidence from the same platform records — not a synced shadow copy
- Available to control owners who never had a separate GRC seat
Custom GRC dashboards and Sheets-based control trackers
A compliance team's spreadsheet that goes stale after the first review cycle
- Posture, evidence gaps, framework coverage, and findings — all in one prompt, always current
- Attestation workflow unchanged — launched campaigns enter the same draft → active → completed lifecycle
- Audit trail on every action — read or write — for SOX and SOC 2 evidence
The manual fallback — readiness meetings and a binder of control evidence
Posture lag that hides overdue controls and evidence gaps until sampling
- Posture answered on demand — not reconstructed by hand the week before the audit
- Controls overdue for review surface the moment you ask — not the day the auditor walks them
- Framework coverage is a query, not a manual crosswalk against the catalog
PLATFORM ADVANTAGE
Compliance Hub AI inherits everything Compliance Hub already enforces
A standalone GRC AI has to plumb identity, the control register, the review-frequency schedule, evidence, and audit. Compliance Hub AI gets all of it for free.
Confirmation-gated writes
2 writes (Create control, Launch review campaign) render a diff preview and require explicit Confirm. The model proposes; the human commits.
Controller-replay, not direct writes
Writes dispatch through the app's controller — the same path the app uses — so authorization and tenant scoping apply. No parallel write path.
Permission-aware
Control creation and campaign launch respect the app's manage gate; a member without rights gets a politely relayed permission error.
Framework catalogs built in
Coverage reads the seeded SOC 2, SOX ITGC, ISO 27001, and HIPAA frameworks and their crosswalks — no separate catalog to maintain.
Recurrence engine
A daily 07:00 UTC engine auto-opens overdue campaigns — the agent's posture and campaign answers reflect cycles that already re-armed.
Audit trail on every action
The audit log captures every read and every write with requesting user, tool, and parameters. SOX and SOC 2 evidence ready by default.
INDUSTRY FIT
Industries where attestation discipline decides the audit
Compliance Hub AI earns its keep where the control regime is real, the evidence is sampled, and the gaps hide in a register nobody opens between review cycles.
SaaS & Technology
SOC 2 Type II programs where the access-review cadence and evidence completeness decide the report — coverage and gaps surfaced before the auditor samples.
Financial Services
SOX ITGC programs where change, access, and vendor controls are walked quarterly — overdue-for-review controls caught the moment you ask.
Healthcare
HIPAA controls reconciled against the seeded catalog — coverage gaps named, evidence completeness tracked for OCR readiness.
Manufacturing
Multi-framework programs where ISO 27001 and SOX overlap — crosswalk-aware coverage so one control's evidence counts across frameworks.
Public Sector
Audit-trailed control records with confirmation-gated writes — agency record-keeping rules satisfied without an extra system.
Professional Services
Client-driven SOC 2 obligations where the readiness clock is short — posture answered on demand instead of reconstructed by hand.
WHY MANGOAPPS WINS
An embedded compliance agent beats a horizontal AI, a GRC-vendor copilot, or a custom build on every axis
The argument compliance, risk, IT, and control owners all share — and the one Vanta or Drata structurally cannot answer.
Cheaper than the alternatives
No Vanta AI tier, no Drata add-on, no OneTrust subscription, no engineering team building a custom control-register copilot.
More secure
Confirmation-gated writes, permission-aware reads, full audit trail. Control, finding, and personnel data stays inside the tenant boundary.
Easier to deploy
Already deployed if Compliance Hub is on. The agent picks up the live control register, campaigns, and framework catalogs the same day.
Easier to use
"How are we doing for SOC 2?" returns posture, coverage, and gaps in one shot — no dashboard to learn, no crosswalk to run by hand.
Easier to manage
Register and campaign edits in the app are immediately visible to the agent — no re-training, no parallel rule store to keep in sync.
Easier to extend
Shares the agentic-tool framework with every other MangoApps agent. A new framework cut or a new gap query ships as a tool.
AI is actually better
A horizontal AI can summarize a control list. Only Compliance Hub AI can answer live posture, name the un-imported framework controls, surface evidence gaps before sampling, and launch a review campaign — confirmation-gated and audit-trailed.
Customer Success
Related Customer Stories
Customer Case Studies
Customer Case Studies
Customer Case Studies
Customer Case Studies
Customer Case Studies
Customer Case Studies
Frequently Asked Questions About Compliance Hub AI
9 tools across the compliance program — summarize overall posture, list and filter the control register, list review campaigns by status or type, show the attestation items assigned to you that are still pending, find evidence gaps (controls with no linked evidence or overdue for review), report framework coverage against the seeded SOC 2 / SOX ITGC / ISO 27001 / HIPAA catalogs, list open and overdue findings, create a control, and launch a review campaign from a control. The last two are confirmation-gated.
No. Both write tools (Create control, Launch review campaign) are flagged risky. The agent parses a draft, dispatches it through the app's controller, and the framework renders a diff preview of exactly what changes — you Confirm before anything is written. The campaign then enters the standard draft → active → completed (locked) lifecycle.
Framework coverage reads the prebuilt SOC 2, SOX ITGC, ISO 27001, and HIPAA frameworks and their control catalogs, then reports imported vs total vs gap per framework. Name a framework and it also returns the specific catalog controls you haven't imported yet, so you know exactly what's missing.
No — there's no live external auditor portal. Auditor handoff is an export package (CSV / XLSX) generated from the app. The agent answers posture, coverage, gap, and finding questions and can create a control or launch a campaign; the export itself lives in the Compliance Hub app.
It depends on the tenant's manage gate. The agent may attempt the write, but the controller re-enforces the real authorization — if managing is restricted to admins, the action returns a permission error that the agent relays politely. Read tools are open to any member.
Time to a posture answer, overdue-control lead time, evidence-gap closure, framework coverage, and finding aging. Compare against your pre-agent baseline.
Let's Talk
Since 2008, we've been building the employee platform for the frontline, earning the trust of 2 million+ users and an NPS of 78.
Why Choose Us?
- AI-Ready Platform: One intelligent place for every employee and workflow.
- Top Security: HITRUST, ISO & SOC 2 certified.
- Exceptional UX: Delightful on mobile and desktop.
- Proven Results: 98% customer retention rate.
Trusted by Legendary Companies:
Prefer to explore first? Ask AI about Compliance Hub AI →