What is Endpoint Tool Governance?

Endpoint Tool Governance is the discipline of deciding which tool calls an AI agent is permitted to make, enforcing that decision where the action happens, and keeping proof of it. Every AI agent reaches for a tool: a file, a command, a model endpoint, a local tool server.

How is control effectiveness different from a SOC 2 Type 2 opinion?

A Type 2 examination samples whether a control operated over a period. Control effectiveness asks whether the behaviour the control was designed to constrain actually changed. A control can operate perfectly and achieve nothing.

Does MeshLogic replace an EDR, DLP or GRC platform?

No. MeshLogic takes signal from those tools where they are deployed and adds the layer none was built to provide: what an autonomous agent did, under whose authority, and whether it can be demonstrated.

What does INSUFFICIENT mean in MeshLogic?

Where a control has no live evidence source, MeshLogic reports insufficient evidence rather than passing it. No setting turns an absent evidence source into a green result.

Prove what your AI agents actually did.

Q: Does MeshLogic read prompt content?

No. Prompt text is not inspected and there is no keystroke capture. Behaviour is judged by what an identity does: which tools it reaches for, what it touches, and whether that matches its established pattern.

MeshLogic governs what AI agents do at the operating system level, evaluates every action against your policy on the device, and seals the outcome into evidence anyone can verify without trusting the system that produced it.

Start a discussion How the proof works

Full capability detail and worked verification available under NDA

From board paper to running control

The board approves a policyA signed document, agreed in committee
The policy is loadedRead, structured, and mapped to the controls it claims to satisfy
It becomes executable codeDeterministic rules, not prose open to interpretation
It deploys to every endpointSigned distribution, no rewrite, no per-device configuration
Effectiveness is measured where work happensEvery action evaluated, every decision recorded and sealed
The evidence flows back through the systemWhat is holding, what is not yet proven, and what to change

The next revision starts from what the evidence showed

SealedAttributed, sealed at the moment made, and anyone can check it.

AWS Qualified Software
Available in AWS Marketplace

SOC 2® Type 2 examination
All five trust services criteria

Sealed at the moment made
Attributed, and anyone can check it

Continuous

Every action, everywhere, all of the time.

Thousands of people. Millions of agent actions. Each one evaluated against the policy that was approved, most of them unremarkable, and none of them waiting for a quarterly review to be looked at.

0actions observed in this window A business this size produces millions in a day

An action observed Within appetite, mapped to a control Outside it

The problem

Your organisation is running agents that take real actions.

They read files, run commands, call tools and move data, under a person's name and authority.

Security tools look for attackers. Compliance tools collect documents. Neither watches an authorised agent doing authorised-looking work.

A developer asks an assistant to clear a failing deployment. It reads a credentials file, opens a connection to a model provider, writes a copy of the config into a synced folder, and closes the ticket.

Every one of those actions was permitted. None of them was approved. Nothing recorded that any of it happened.

Three questions follow, and nothing you own answers them.

What did it actually do?

no record of the action itself

Who was it acting for?

a service account, and no further

Can you prove that to someone with no reason to trust you?

only our own word for it

Three answers MeshLogic changes

See how it answers them

This is not a prediction. It is the current position.

92%

of organisations that suffered an AI-related breach lacked proper AI access controls.

IBM and Ponemon Institute, Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026

68%

of breached organisations had no AI governance policy to manage AI or detect its unsanctioned use, up from 63% the year before.

IBM and Ponemon Institute, Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026

109:1

Machine identities, including AI agents, now outnumber human identities. Your identity governance covers the one.

Palo Alto Networks, 2026 Identity Security Landscape, 2,900+ security decision-makers

Agent use went up. Governance didn't keep up. Shadow AI went from one breach in five to nearly one in two.

Why MeshLogic

Three things that make this different

Starting with the one your board will test first.

A control you cannot demonstrate is a control you do not have.

A dashboard that reports green on absent evidence is reporting the absence of a finding, not the presence of a control. When the evidence is not there, MeshLogic reports that the evidence is not there, per control, and no setting turns that into a pass.

Why we publish the failures

Every capability, on one page.

Know what you have, detect what moves, identify who is acting, protect, comply, prove and remember. Each row is the enterprise position for that scope, and each one says plainly whether it is live, arming, or not yet measured.

Walk through the platform

MeshLogic console, whole-business overview

MeshLogic console. Rows that are not yet proven say so.

We put ourselves through the examination first.

MeshLogic has completed a SOC 2® Type 2 examination across all five trust services criteria, by running its own operations on the accountability model it sells.

We did not write a policy claiming we govern AI agents. We governed them, in production, and had an auditor examine it.

What the evidence has to be

Four properties. Miss any one and the rest stops meaning anything.

01

Complete

Every decision, with the evidence to prove it.

02

Attributed

Tied to the actor that took it, human or machine.

03

Sealed

Immutable once written, including to us.

04

Verifiable

Checkable by someone with no reason to trust us.

Mapped to the frameworks you answer to

International standards first, regional frameworks wherever you are regulated. Named control identifiers, not a logo wall, and where a control is not yet proven the report says so.

ISO/IEC 42001InternationalDORAEuropean UnionISO/IEC 27001:2022InternationalAPRA CPS 234AustraliaSOC 2InternationalPrivacy Act APPsAustraliaAML/CTFMulti-jurisdictionAPRA CPS 230AustraliaACSC Essential EightAustralia ISO/IEC 42001InternationalDORAEuropean UnionISO/IEC 27001:2022InternationalAPRA CPS 234AustraliaSOC 2InternationalPrivacy Act APPsAustraliaAML/CTFMulti-jurisdictionAPRA CPS 230AustraliaACSC Essential EightAustralia

How the mapping works

Built to fit the stack you already have

MeshLogic is designed to sit alongside the tools you have invested in, not to displace them. Where those tools reach, we take their signal. Where they do not, we cover the ground ourselves.

Alongside your EDR

An EDR tells you whether the machine is compromised. We tell you what the AI agent did on it, for whom, and prove it. Two questions, one endpoint, both worth answering.

Alongside your DLP

Content inspection at scale across email, SaaS and data at rest belongs to a dedicated platform. We classify sensitive and credential material on the device, as part of governing what agents do with it.

Alongside your GRC platform

Your GRC platform can stay as the system of record for policy and attestation. We supply the endpoint evidence it was never able to collect, already mapped to control identifiers.

On overlapSome of what we do will overlap with what you already run. Treat it as optional coverage rather than duplication: turn our version off where an incumbent does the job well, on where there is a gap. The evidence chain is the same either way.

How we fit with each

Why now

Evidence cannot be backdated.

Everything before the day you start collecting it is a story you tell about yourself. Everything after is something you can prove. That line moves forward one day at a time, and it never moves back.

Agents already operating

No record you can prove

Today

Every action sealed and verifiable

Provable to anyone, years later

The agents are already there

Not a future scenario. Your people are already running tools that read files, execute commands and move data under their own credentials.

The rules are being written now

No major regime yet names an AI agent as something that can be held accountable, and every one of them is under review. The organisations that answer first will be the ones already holding the evidence.

You cannot start retroactively

A record can only be sealed at the moment it is created. Nothing collected before you began can be made verifiable afterwards, however good the intent.

The evidence you will be asked for in three years starts today.

Bring your control assertions and what is already deployed. We will show you which of them this evidence can carry, verify a record with your assurance team, and be straight about where your existing tools should stay in place.

Start a discussion Read the argument first

Scenarios

Five questions you will be asked. Answered with proof.

Each one is a question a regulator, a board or a court will eventually ask about an AI agent. Each is answered from the device, at the moment it happened, in a form anyone can re-derive.

See the scenarios How they connect

Evidence covers every endpoint that carries the sensor. A device without it is a gap, and the record says so rather than hiding it.

Start with the question closest to yours

Did anything read that file?A production export left in a shared folder for two hours
01
How did this happen, and when?An agent quietly changed an approved process
02
Is this an attack or a runaway?700 agents hit one internal API in 90 seconds
03
What is running that we never approved?A well-meaning employee's own local model
04
Did the policy actually work?The board wants effectiveness, not attestation
05

SealedAttributed at the moment made, and independently re-derivable.

The five questions

What happens instead when the record already exists.

01 / 05

01 · Asked by general counsel, CRO

Illustrative scenario

Did anything read that file?

Customer data sat in a shared folder for two hours. Do we have to report a breach?

At stake

Notifying customers and regulators, reputational damage and possible penalties.

Without MeshLogic Weeks

Teams chase access logs that only record people, not AI. Nobody can prove nothing read the file, so the company reports a breach to be safe.

With MeshLogic Minutes

One search shows everything that touched the file, human or AI, on every device. Two human engineers opened it while fixing the fault. An AI coding agent, working under an engineer’s login, tried to load it. MeshLogic stopped it instantly and asked the engineer, who said no. Nothing else came near it.

Why it matters

A confident answer in minutes, and no unnecessary breach notification.

Every file action captured on the deviceHuman and non-human identities attributedAgents prompted before ingestingRe-derivable by an outside party

02 · Asked by internal audit

Illustrative scenario

The AI agent found a faster way. Nobody approved it.

Internal audit finds unmatched transactions going back months. When did the process change, was it a person or an AI agent, and was it approved?

At stake

Months of undetected compliance breaches in a core financial process.

Without MeshLogic Months to find, weeks to explain

An AI agent quietly skips a validation step. No person made the change, so no system records it, and it runs unnoticed for months. Once internal audit finds it, weeks of investigation end with “sometime in Q1, we think”.

With MeshLogic Same second

The moment the agent tries to skip the step, MeshLogic pauses the run and alerts the process owner. She is asleep, so the run waits rather than going ahead. She reviews it first thing next morning and says no. The approved process never changes.

Why it matters

Approved processes stay approved. Internal audit has no incident to find, only a sealed record showing the attempt was caught.

Approved processes as running controlsHold and prompt, not just allow or denyA named human owner for every agentEvidence that cannot be backdated

03 · Asked by CIO, CISO

Illustrative scenario

Seven hundred AI agents hit one system in ninety seconds.

Something is overwhelming a critical system. Is it an attack or a runaway, and can we stop it without shutting 700 people out?

At stake

A system outage, or cutting off 700 staff to contain it.

Without MeshLogic Hours

Four teams each see one piece. The system sees heavy load, security sees 700 valid logins, and the network sees nothing wrong. Hours go into piecing it together, and the fallback is pulling access for everyone.

With MeshLogic Under 2 minutes

In seconds, MeshLogic traces all 700 alerts to one AI agent doing the same thing on 700 staff devices. Before blocking it, MeshLogic checks the block against the last 30 days of real activity to confirm it won’t stop legitimate work. Then it switches the block on, and the flood stops.

Why it matters

The system stays up and everyone keeps working. Had that AI tool already been under control rather than only watched, the flood would never have started.

Every agent enumerated, owned, linked to a personTool-level control per agentSimulate before enforcingSealed events into your SIEM

04 · Asked by head of AI

Illustrative scenario

He set up his own AI to get ahead. Nobody had told him not to.

Are staff feeding customer data into AI tools nobody approved? How do we find out without punishing initiative?

At stake

Sensitive customer data going into unapproved AI, invisible to existing controls.

The setup

The company allows staff to use their own laptops for work and requires them to be enrolled in company device management before they can reach company apps and data. That is current best practice, and the enrolment is what lets MeshLogic onto the laptop in the first place.

What enrolment does not do is stop him installing an AI model of his own. Once that model runs on the laptop it needs no network, so web filtering, the proxy log and network monitoring never see it. The breach would not be deliberate. Nobody had told him not to.

Without MeshLogic Months, if ever

The AI runs entirely on his own laptop, offline, so web and network controls never see it. If it is found months later, the answer is a ban that drives the next workaround underground.

With MeshLogic Within a minute

MeshLogic is installed through the company’s existing device management when he connects his personal laptop for work, and it keeps working offline. The day his tool first runs, MeshLogic recognises it as a new AI agent linked to him. When it opens a customer claims file, MeshLogic flags the file as sensitive and offers a redacted copy. He accepts, and his tool still works.

Policy is evaluated on the laptop itself, so it holds with the laptop off the network entirely. The record is sealed on the device as each action happens and syncs when he next connects, so a gap in connectivity is not a gap in the record.

Why it matters

Customer data stays protected. Two weeks later the tool is approved for his whole team, and nobody faces a disciplinary case.

Every new agent enumerated the day it appearsPolicy evaluated on the device, online or notLocal models covered, not only cloud APIsPrompting that changes behaviour

05 · Asked by the board, CRO

Illustrative scenario

The board approved an AI policy. Six months later, did it work?

Which of our 14 AI commitments are actually working on staff devices, and can the board rely on a figure rather than a sign-off?

At stake

Relying on ticks and signatures when the regulator asks for proof.

Without MeshLogic Weeks, every cycle

Surveys, a control library and a slide of green ticks, rebuilt each reporting cycle. When the regulator asks for evidence, the answer is a signature and a screenshot.

With MeshLogic On demand

Each commitment runs as a live control on every device. Before any control is switched on, MeshLogic tests it against a month of real activity so nobody is surprised. The board report comes straight from the record: what is working, and what is not yet proven. The regulator can check it themselves.

Why it matters

The board relies on facts, not assurances, and the regulator doesn’t have to take anyone’s word for it.

Policy as a running controlSimulation before enforcementInsufficient reported, not hiddenA report the regulator can re-derive

Five of many

These are five of the questions we have been asked. They are not the list. The same record answers any question about what an agent or a person did on an endpoint, which is why none of these needs new capability to answer, only a different query against evidence that already exists.

Which agent touched the payroll export
Whether a contractor's assistant could reach the deal room
What changed the day the model was upgraded
Who approved the exception, and when it lapsed
Whether the control signed off in March still held in November
Which tools an agent can reach on a merged entity's fleet

The through-line

Five different questions. One way of answering them.

CONTROL

Set the guardrails

What agents and people are supposed to do, written as policy that runs on the device, and tried against real activity before it is switched on.

SEE

Know what actually happened

Every action on every endpoint that carries the sensor, attributed to a human or a non-human identity with a named owner. Online, offline, in the browser or on the machine. Where the sensor is absent, the record says so.

INTERVENE

Step in at the moment

Observe, prompt, hold or enforce, per agent and per tool. Change behaviour where you can; stop it where you must. Never after the fact.

PROVE

Hand over the evidence

Sealed when made, chained, and re-derivable by anyone you give the hash to. Including the honest answer "not yet evidenced".

Point-in-time attestation assumed the world stayed still between audits. Agents do not. The line moves forward one day at a time, and the evidence you will be asked for in three years starts today.

Start a discussion

What are you being asked to prove, and by whom?

It will not be just one question, and it may not be any of these five. Bring us yours and we will show you how each of them would be answered on your own staff devices, watching only, before anything is switched on.

Start a discussion See the platform

Scenarios are illustrative composites. Names, timestamps and figures are example values, not client data.

Platform

Your policy is a document. It should be a running control.

A board approves a policy. What happens next decides whether it stays a document or becomes a control.

The same policy, two paths

The left is how it works in most organisations today, and there is nothing wrong with any single step in it. The gap is what happens after the acknowledgement.

Today

The board approves a strategic policySigned off in committee, with the intent agreed.
Management translates it downOperational and tactical instructions written from the strategic text.
It is circulated to staffRead and acknowledged. The acknowledgement is the evidence.
Next review at the following board meetingBetween those two points, nothing reports back.

Effectiveness is inferred from the fact that nobody raised anything.

With MeshLogic

The board approves, knowing what it will meanMeshLogic shows what the change implies across the business before it is signed.
The document is read and translatedOperational and tactical controls are generated from the strategic text, for human review and endorsement. A person still decides.
Endorsed controls reach every endpointDistributed automatically, so what was approved is what runs.
People and agents both acknowledge, and both are measuredIntent is acknowledged as before. Then every action is evaluated against the live policy and sealed as signed evidence of what actually happened.
Effectiveness comes back as dataWhich clauses are holding, which are not, and which are not yet proven. The next revision starts there.

and the loop runs again

Across applications, tools and AIThe same path applies whether the actor is a person, an application or an autonomous agent. You can prompt first and enforce later, at the operating system level, instead of finding out at the next review that you never knew.

The problem

Attestation was built for human pace

Almost every control framework in use today answers the question "is this control working?" by asking someone. That was a reasonable compromise when controls operated at human pace.

That compromise has run out.

It is sampled

A control that operated thousands of times is tested against a handful of cases pulled for review. Sampling gives you a statistical argument about a population. It does not tell you what happened in the cases nobody looked at, and it was never designed to.

It is self-reported

The person confirming the control held is usually the person accountable for it holding. That is not dishonesty, it is structure. An attestation is an opinion offered by an interested party, and everyone in the chain knows it, which is why so much assurance effort goes into checking the checkers.

It is point in time

A control is examined on one date and assumed to have held for the period either side of it. The gap between the test and the reality is invisible by construction, and it is exactly where incidents are found afterwards.

Why this stopped being tolerableAn autonomous agent can take more actions before lunch than a team takes in a quarter, and there is no person at the end of it to attest. The control population has moved to machine pace while the method of measuring it has not.

Why MeshLogic

The platform is organised around the questions you get asked

Not around features. Each area exists to answer one question a board, an auditor or a regulator will eventually put to you.

The order is the argumentWhat exists, who and what can reach it, what data is involved, what we do about it, what is happening, whether that met the standard, whether we can prove it, and why we decided that in the first place. Most tooling answers two or three and leaves you reconciling the rest across systems that disagree.

Endpoint Tool Governance

The category we had to name, because nothing existed for it.

Every AI agent your people run reaches for a tool: a file, a command, a model endpoint, a local tool server.

Endpoint Tool Governance is the discipline of deciding which of those reaches are permitted, enforcing that where the reach happens, and keeping proof of the decision.

Eight capability areas make it up. Together they are what a serious buyer means when they ask whether you can govern agentic AI on an endpoint.

01

Discovery and visibility

Which AI assistants, extensions, tool servers and local models are running, and whether each is approved, tolerated or unknown.

02

Access control

Which identity may reach which tool, and which data an agent may reach on its behalf. Per identity, per tool, not per machine.

03

Runtime protection

Policy is evaluated on the device as the action happens. Enforcement applies only when your organisation arms it by policy, at the depth each platform allows.

04

Audit and behaviour

Tool calls traced, patterns correlated across identity, data and device, and the whole trail written where it cannot be edited afterwards.

05

Policy management

Authored centrally, versioned, staged, scoped hierarchically, with an exception workflow that records an exception as recorded rather than as enforced.

06

Platform integration

Signal out to the systems you already run, and identity in from the ones that hold it. MeshLogic is not asking to be your only console.

07

Compliance and deployment

Immutable retention, evidence export, key management, and staged rollout through the management tooling already on your fleet.

08

Acceptable use

Policy applied to what an agent does with a tool, so an acceptable-use standard becomes something enforced rather than something signed.

Endpoint Tool Governance in the MeshLogic console

One policy surface for applications, tool servers and skills. Verdicts inherit down the hierarchy and a child can only tighten.

Why the whole set mattersDiscovery without control is an inventory. Control without audit is unprovable. Audit without immutability is a log someone can edit. The eight are not a feature list, they are the minimum set that makes the claim survive scrutiny, and MeshLogic was built to hold all of them rather than to score well on some.

Two questions that sit outside the scope

Assessments of agentic AI concentrate on what an agent does with data in motion.

Two questions usually fall outside that boundary. Where does sensitive data already live, and how is it classified before an agent reaches for it?

And why was this decision permitted at all?

Plenty of organisations answer the first, through a data security programme that runs separately from anything agentic. Far fewer have an owner for the second.

MeshLogic was not built to pass an assessment.

It was built to a thesis, and passes assessments as a by-product.

What replaces it: a policy that runs, and reports back

Six stages, and the last one feeds the first. Stage 05 is where the attestation above is replaced by measurement.

Stage	What happens	What changes
01	The board approves a policy	A signed document agreed in committee. It is the last artefact everyone is looking at together.
02	The policy is loaded	Read, structured, and mapped to the control identifiers it claims to satisfy. The mapping is explicit, so a clause can be traced to the evidence that will test it.
03	It becomes executable code	Deterministic rules rather than prose open to interpretation. Two people reading the same clause can disagree. Two endpoints evaluating the same rule cannot.
04	It deploys to every endpoint	Signed distribution, no rewrite per platform, no per-device configuration. The policy that was approved is the policy that runs.
05	Effectiveness is measured where the work happens	Every action is evaluated against the live policy version, and every decision is recorded and sealed. Not sampled, not self-attested.
06	The evidence flows back through the system	Which clauses are holding, which are not, and which are not yet proven. Where a control is falling short of the intent behind it, MeshLogic proposes the change and a person decides. The next revision starts from that instead of from opinion.

The learning loop is the pointA policy that is never measured cannot improve. A policy that is measured by the people it governs improves slowly and in one direction. Closing the loop with evidence the board can verify independently is what turns a governance document into a control that gets better each cycle.

An executive can only escalate what is recorded, and a board can only rely on what reaches it.

How it deploys

Three operating principles that matter more than any feature.

01

Through your MDM

No new management plane. Signed packages, delivered by the tooling you already run.

02

Observe first

MeshLogic arms when you are ready. Nothing is enforced without you asking for it.

03

Actions, not words

Behaviour is judged by what an identity does: which tools it reaches for, what it touches, and whether that matches the pattern it has established. Prompt text is not inspected and there is no keystroke capture.

Sovereign by deployment, not by configuration

Data residency is usually sold as a constraint you negotiate down. We built it as a property of the architecture instead. The whole platform stands up inside the jurisdiction you nominate: storage, processing, key management.

A pooled platform

One system holding everyone, with data tagged by territory. Separation is a claim that has to be tested, and an assessor will ask you to prove a negative.

A MeshLogic instance

The platform deployed once per jurisdiction, self-contained. Data does not leave, because there is nowhere for it to go. A new region is a deployment, not a re-architecture.

The loop closes with the board, not with a log file.

What was approved, whether it held, and which parts of it are not yet proven. That is the report we are built to produce.

How the proof works Start a discussion

Evidence

An audit log asks you to trust the vendor.

We designed ourselves out of that question. Every record MeshLogic produces is sealed at the moment it is made, attributed to the actor that caused it, and verifiable from the receipt we hand you, against a trust store held outside the system that produced it.

01

Hash

Every governed action is hashed into a content hash.

02

Seal

Written to storage under a compliance lock. No administrator, including ours, can delete it or shorten its retention.

03

Anchor

Each period is anchored twice outside MeshLogic: a trusted timestamp authority, and a public transparency log.

Why the anchor sits outsideAn anchor we could edit would not be an anchor, so it sits in a ledger operated independently of MeshLogic. And a failed check is not a dead end: it establishes that a record changed and which period it changed in, which means an attempt to hide something becomes a finding of its own.

Not a blockchain. A hash chain with trusted timestamping, anchored in a public transparency log. That is the accurate description, and for anyone who knows the difference it is the more credible one.

Why MeshLogic

You have years of history. Here is where you actually stand.

Most organisations we talk to have a decade of logs already. It is worth being straight about what that means, because the honest answer is better than it first sounds.

Your existing logs were never provableNo log store, ours or anyone else's, can show that its own history was not edited.

Everything from the day you start isThe clock begins at the first sealed event, not when a rollout finishes.

And it outlives the contractThe ledger is public and independently operated, so what you collected stays verifiable if you leave us, if we are acquired, or if we cease to exist. Evidence you cannot take with you is not really yours.

Verified, not asserted

Every signed leaf MeshLogic has produced is verified against a trust store held outside the system that made it, with zero mismatches. That is not a claim we make about ourselves. It is a check we can repeat in front of you, from a receipt we hand you.

If your assurance team wants to do exactly that, we will walk them through recomputing a chain from a receipt in a session. It is the most useful hour you can spend evaluating us.

Why now

The line moves forward one day at a time.

A record can only be sealed at the moment it is made. So the evidence you will be asked for in three years is the evidence that starts being collected today, and every day you wait is a day that can never be added later.

Bring a receipt to your own auditor.

That is the entire proposition. If it does not hold up without us defending it, we have not built what we say we built.

Start a discussion Control effectiveness

Control effectiveness

An audit opinion proves a control ran. It does not prove it worked.

A Type 2 examination samples whether a control operated over a period. It is a good question, and it is not the one your board asked. MeshLogic measures whether the behaviour a control was designed to constrain actually changed, and maps that evidence to the control identifiers you answer to.

Where a control is carried, you see exactly what carries it. Where nothing does, it scores INSUFFICIENT instead of green.

Read this firstNo major information security or operational risk regime textually mandates per-action, who-did-what attribution, and none names AI or an AI agent as something that can be held accountable. That gap is the reason MeshLogic exists. It also means we say the platform exceeds the baseline rather than satisfies a requirement, because no such requirement exists yet.

The problem

Three questions, and the category answers two

Every control sits at one of three levels. Most of the market stops at the second.

DesignedApproved, written down, and true of nothing yet

OperatingSampled and signed off. This is what an audit opinion covers

EffectiveEvery action evaluated, attributed and sealed.Most controls stop at operating. MeshLogic evidences effective.

Approved. And true of nothing yet.

200 governed actions over the period

a governed action, unexaminedin the samplenever looked ata personan agent acting for oneinsufficientoutside appetite

Most dashboards cannot return a bad result

A platform that passes a control on absent evidence is reporting the absence of a finding, not the presence of a control. Those are different things, and the difference is where regulatory failures live.

If nothing on the endpoint ever produced a signal for a given control, a scoring engine has two options. It can infer that no signal means no problem, which is how most of them behave. Or it can say that it cannot evidence the control, which is what is actually true.

Why MeshLogic

Insufficient is a first-class result

Not a gap in the product. A property of it.

It is architectural

Insufficient evidence is how the scoring engine behaves when a control has no live evidence source. It is not a setting, a threshold or a reporting preference, and there is no configuration that turns it into a pass.

It is per control

Across every framework we map, each control carries its own position and the evidence sitting behind it. Where a control is not yet proven we say so, and what it would take to close it. That line moves as more of your devices are connected. You get the shape of your coverage, not a single number that hides it.

It is uncomfortable on purpose

The platform will tell a board that most of its operational resilience controls are not yet proven, whatever the source. That is true, it is useful, and no vendor whose dashboard always goes green will tell them.

What that looks like in practice

The same controls, cut by office and by the regulation each one answers to. Measured per office, blank where an office is not reporting, and never blended into a single number that hides both.

Control effectiveness by office and regulation in the MeshLogic console

Green is effective, amber is degraded, red is ineffective, and a dash means no evidence rather than a pass.

Every framework you answer to, and the controls only you answer for

Effectiveness is only useful when it lands on the identifiers someone else is going to name. MeshLogic maps across the major international standards, the regional regimes, and the sector frameworks that apply where you are regulated. It also does something none of those cover.

International standards

The management-system and information-security standards your assurance programme is already built around, mapped to named control identifiers rather than to a category.

Regional and sector regimes

The prudential, financial-services, privacy and national frameworks that apply where you operate. MeshLogic deploys as a self-contained instance per jurisdiction, so answering to several at once does not mean running several products.

Your own controls

The ones no framework names. Internal standards, acceptable use, the appetite your board actually set. The same measurement applies, and effectiveness is reported against your policy rather than somebody else's clause.

The part usually left outMost organisations have more internal controls than regulated ones, and none of them are measured. A framework tells you what an assessor will ask. It does not tell you whether the thing your board asked for is happening.

Why we hold ourselves to this too

We are a company whose product claim is that organisations assert controls they cannot demonstrate. A homepage that overstated would refute the product. So the same standard runs through everything here: what we can evidence, we say; what we cannot, we say that too; and the detail sits in a versioned technical brief you can hold us to rather than in marketing copy that moves.

This is not a moral position. It is the only position consistent with what we sell.

Bring your own control list.

Name the assertions your board is asking about. We will show you which ones we can evidence today, which ones score INSUFFICIENT, and which of them an audit opinion was never going to answer.

Start a discussion How the proof works

Australia · APRA-regulated entities

CPS 234 and CPS 230, evidenced rather than attested.

For APRA-regulated entities and their boards. MeshLogic maps evidence to named paragraphs of CPS 234 and to CPS 230 incident management. Where a control is not yet proven, this page says so.

The framing we hold toNeither CPS 234 nor CPS 230 textually mandates per-action, who-did-what attribution, and neither names AI or an AI agent as something that can be held accountable. MeshLogic enables, accelerates and exceeds the baseline. We do not claim the standard requires per-action attribution, because it does not. We cite the standards themselves, not the Prudential Practice Guides, which are non-binding.

Why MeshLogic

CPS 234, Information Security

Our strongest mapping. Built, not planned, and covering paragraphs 15 to 25.

Paragraphs	Obligation	Evidence source
15, 17, 19	Information security capability, control implementation, identity and privilege	Process-execution records, privilege-change and identity-event categories
16	Information security policy framework	Policy events and policy-violation categories
18	Control testing and configuration change	Configuration-change events, severity-banded DLP findings
20, 21, 23	Detection, response and testing	Threat-detection and behaviour-alert records
22	Audit trail	Data-plane transfer events. Under-covered: login-based audit evidence comes from a separate identity producer that does not yet reach the same data feed.
24, 25	Systematic testing and internal audit	AI interaction records

CPS 230, Operational Risk Management

We are deliberately more modest here than the market noise would suggest. CPS 230 is an operational resilience standard, and most of it is not evidenced by endpoint security data.

Control	Position
CPS230-4, Incident management	Evidenced Threat-detection events on the live stream
Operational risk framework	Insufficient
Business continuity	Insufficient
Service provider management	Insufficient
IT resilience and recovery	Insufficient
Testing and assurance	Insufficient

Where MeshLogic fits in a CPS 230 programmeIncident management, and third party and AI tool risk on your endpoints. We do not evidence your business continuity arrangements and we will not claim to. If a vendor tells you their endpoint agent evidences CPS 230 broadly, ask them which paragraph.

An Australian instance, not an Australian option

MeshLogic deploys as a self-contained regional instance. For APRA-regulated entities that means the entire platform runs in Australia: storage, processing, key management, with disaster recovery in a second Australian region. There is no global pool holding your data with a territory flag against it.

If you are an Australian entity with operations offshore, the same architecture works in the other direction. Each jurisdiction gets its own instance of the same platform, which is a cleaner answer to a cross-border data question than any configuration setting.

Bring the control assertions your board is asking about.

We will show you which ones we can evidence today, and which ones score INSUFFICIENT.

Start a discussion All frameworks

How we fit

MeshLogic is built to integrate with the stack you already run.

You have spent years and budget on endpoint security, data protection and governance tooling. MeshLogic is designed to take signal from those investments and add the layer none of them was built to provide.

What an autonomous agent did, under whose authority, provable to someone outside your organisation.

Why MeshLogic

Alongside your EDR

Different question, same endpoint.

An EDR asks whether this machine is compromised. We ask what the agent on it did, for whom, and whether you can demonstrate it.

Area	How it works together
Threat prevention	Malware, ransomware and intrusion response stay with your EDR. We take its signal where it is useful and do not attempt to duplicate it.
Agent activity	Attribution of a file write, a process spawn or a tool call to the specific agent that performed it, and to the identity it acted under. This is the layer MeshLogic brings.
OverlapOptional coverage	Process and file records exist in both. Ours is oriented to governance rather than threat, and can be scoped down where your EDR already covers the ground.

Alongside your data protection platform

Mature content inspection across mail flow, SaaS and data at rest is a category of its own, with taxonomies tuned over years. Where one is deployed we take its signal rather than run the same scan twice.

What we classify is different: sensitive and credential material on the device, at the moment an agent reaches for it, as part of governing that action.

Area	How it works together
Enterprise content inspection	Mail flow and SaaS coverage sit naturally with a dedicated platform, and we read from it where it is there.
Agent-driven data movement	Where an autonomous agent reads or moves material on the device, we govern that action and record the decision against your policy. This is the layer MeshLogic brings.
OverlapOptional coverage	On-device classification exists in both. Ours is tied to the action that triggered it, so it answers what an agent was reaching for rather than what sits in a store. Where endpoint coverage is thin or absent, it can carry the ground on its own.

Alongside your GRC platform

Your GRC platform can stay as the system of record for policy, attestation and the control register, or you can run that register in MeshLogic. Either way the register was never the hard part.

The hard part is that nothing has been feeding it evidence from where the work actually happens.

Area	How it works together
Policy and attestation	Authoring, workflow and sign-off stay where they are. We do not ask you to move them.
Evidence supply	Endpoint evidence, mapped to control identifiers and sealed, so a control score is derived from what happened rather than from what someone attested. This is the layer MeshLogic brings.
OverlapOptional coverage	MeshLogic maps evidence to control identifiers itself, across international standards, regional regimes and your own internal controls. Where no GRC platform is in place, or one is being replaced, that mapping stands on its own.

Alongside browser-level AI monitoring

Tools that discover AI use and prompt people inside the browser are solving a different problem to ours today, and the two sit well together.

They watch the person

Prompt content at submit time, and the behaviour of someone typing into a chat box. If your primary concern is employees pasting customer data into a web chat, that is the right layer for it.

We watch the agent

A command line agent, a local tool server, a file written to disk, a process spawned by an autonomous coding agent. A browser tool sees what happens in the tab. What it cannot see is the same agent acting outside it, which is where the actions with consequences tend to land.

Why the evidence layer belongs with usBetween the two, the gap narrows considerably. The reason MeshLogic holds the record is the strength of the evidence rather than the breadth of it: a monitoring tool produces a log, and we produce a sealed, attributed record that anyone can verify without trusting the system that made it.

Tell us what is already deployed.

The first conversation is usually about what you have, what it evidences today, and where the gaps sit. We will tell you which ones we can close and which ones your existing tools should.

Start a discussion Control effectiveness

Contact

Tell us what you need evidenced.

The most useful first message names the control assertions your board is asking about, what is already deployed, and roughly how many endpoints. That is enough for a first conversation.

Send us a message

What is this about

Work email required

Company required

Your role

Endpoints, approximately

How can we help? required

This is submitted to us directly. You do not need to open a mail client. The form is handled by Netlify, who host this site; what you type reaches us and no one else. If you would rather use email, the addresses are beside this form.

Get in touch

We would rather you tested the claims than took them. Bring a control list and we will show you what the evidence carries and what scores insufficient.

Sales and evaluationsales@meshlogic.ai

Existing deploymentssupport@meshlogic.ai

Where we areSydney, Australia. Deployments run in the jurisdiction you nominate.

What happens after you send it

Three steps, and none of them is a discovery call about your budget.

A reply from a person

Not a queue and not a sequence of nurture emails. If we are not the right fit for what you described, we will say so in the first reply.

Your control list, not our feature list

You name the assertions your board is asking about. We show you which ones the evidence carries today and which score insufficient.

The technical brief, under NDA

Versioned, and covering platform support, the interception model, the policy language and worked verification of the evidence chain.

What we do with what you sendWe use it to answer you. It is not added to a marketing list, not sold, and not passed to a third party. If you would rather start under an NDA before describing your business, say so in the message and we will send one first.

Partnership

Working with MeshLogic.

We work with regulated enterprises deploying MeshLogic across their staff devices, with advisory and assurance firms who need evidence their clients can rely on, and with technology partners whose platforms consume or supply governance signal.

Why MeshLogic

What you can verify before you commit

We would rather you tested the claims than took them.

The platform runs continuously in production against the production cloud backend. We run it on ourselves, every day, before we ask anyone else to.
The evidence can be verified independently. Every signed leaf MeshLogic has produced is verified against a trust store held outside the system that made it, with zero mismatches. Bring a receipt to your own assurance team and we will recompute it in front of them.
A five-criteria SOC 2® Type 2 examination has been completed by running our own operations on the accountability model we sell.
The full chain runs, end to end, from a user action through to a sealed record of where it came from, anchored outside MeshLogic. The technical brief walks through every step.
Enforcement is armed only when you choose. MeshLogic deploys in observe mode. Nothing is enforced without you asking for it.

How an engagement starts

Your control assertions, not our feature list

You name the assertions your board is asking about. We show you which our evidence can carry, and which will not yet be proven on your current setup.

A 30 day deployment in observe mode

Delivered through your existing MDM to a nominated set of endpoints. Success is defined up front, and the output is the evidence itself rather than a slide.

A technical brief under NDA

Versioned, and covering platform support, the interception model, the policy language and worked verification of the evidence chain.

Start a partnership discussion.

Tell us what is already deployed, your endpoint count, and the control assertions your board is asking about. That is enough for a first conversation.

Get in touch Control effectiveness