/

  / AIUC-1 AI Agent Certification: The Complete Guide

AIUC-1 AI Agent Certification: The Complete Guide

Most security certifications were built for software that follows rules. AI agents do not. They consume data, draw conclusions, call tools, and take action, increasingly without a human in the loop.

That gap is what AIUC-1 was created to close: it is the first auditable security standard built specifically for AI agents, and a few enterprise buyers have started asking vendors for it by name.

This guide covers what AIUC-1 actually tests, the six risk domains it audits, how the certification process works, what it costs, how long it lasts, and how it aligns with SOC 2, ISO 42001, ISO 27001, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. It also covers the structural questions worth asking before you treat an AIUC-1 report as proof of anything.

AIUC-1 AI Agent Certification The Complete Guide

What Is AIUC-1 Certification?

AIUC-1 is a certifiable standard for AI agents created by the Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company (AIUC), a San Francisco-based, venture-backed startup founded by people with experience at organizations including Anthropic. The standard was developed with input from Orrick, Stanford, the Cloud Security Alliance, MIT, and MITRE, and launched in mid-2025.

The framework comprises 51 requirements and 130 controls, organized across six risk pillars. It evaluates whether an organization has implemented and tested the technical guardrails, operational practices, and legal policies needed to reduce the risk of unsafe, unreliable, or unauthorized AI behavior. Certification applies to a specific AI system or product, not to the organization as a whole. An AIUC-1 certificate, audit report, and badge tell enterprise buyers that an agent has been independently tested against agent-specific risks.

People describe AIUC-1 as the “SOC 2 for AI agents,” and the analogy holds in spirit. The difference is what it looks at. SOC 2 examines a service organization’s general controls. AIUC-1 examines how an agent behaves under pressure: when someone tries to jailbreak it, when it is asked to do something outside its scope, when it has access to data it should not expose.

Worth Knowing: About AIUC-1

AIUC-1 does not define what counts as an "AI agent." The vendor decides which system to certify and what falls in scope. That makes scope the single most important thing to check on any certificate, because a narrowly scoped audit may not cover the agent you actually use.

Why AIUC-1 Certification Matters for Enterprise AI Adoption

The business case rests on a simple problem: enterprises cannot reliably assess the security of their AI vendors, and the failures are expensive. According to EY research on responsible AI, 64% of companies with over $1 billion in revenue have already lost more than $1 million to AI-related failures. 

That gap shows up directly in sales cycles. When security, legal, and procurement teams evaluate an AI vendor, they ask about hallucinations, prompt injection defenses, and what happens when an agent makes an unauthorized call. SOC 2 and ISO 27001 do not answer those questions. AIUC-1 gives buyers a structured, third-party-tested answer, which is why holding the certificate can move a stalled procurement review forward.

The certification also produces real engineering outcomes, not just a badge. AIUC has reported cases where a customer service agent’s hallucination rate dropped from 11% to under 2% after strengthening its groundedness filter, and another where inappropriate-tone outputs fell from 9% to under 2% through better defensive prompting and output moderation. One company found and patched a PII exposure vulnerability during the certification process itself.

The Six Core Risk Domains Covered by AIUC-1

The Six Core Risk Domains Covered by AIUC-1

AIUC-1’s 51 requirements are grouped into six domains. Each targets a category of risk that traditional security frameworks were not designed to handle.

Data and Privacy

Covers how customer data is used, retained, and protected. Requirements address input and output data policies, limits on what data the agent can access, protection of IP and trade secrets, prevention of cross-customer data exposure, and prevention of PII leakage. This is where the standard forces clarity on whether customer data trains the model and how long it is kept.

Security

The adversarial-resistance domain. It covers third-party testing of adversarial robustness, detection and real-time filtering of malicious inputs, prevention of prompt injection and unauthorized agent actions, enforcement of user access privileges, and protection of the deployment environment. This is the heart of what separates an agent audit from a general security audit.

Safety

Focuses on preventing harmful and out-of-scope outputs. Requirements include defining an AI risk taxonomy, conducting pre-deployment testing, preventing harmful and customer-defined high-risk outputs, and flagging high-risk outputs for human review. Safety is partly judgment-based, which means documentation alone can sometimes satisfy a requirement, so the testing behind it deserves scrutiny.

Reliability

Targets the failure modes that erode trust in production: hallucinations and tool misuse. Controls cover hallucination prevention and restrictions on which tools an agent can call and when. For a customer-facing agent, this is the domain that keeps it from inventing a refund policy or triggering the wrong workflow.

Accountability

Covers what happens when things go wrong. Requirements include AI failure response plans, vendor due diligence, and clear AI disclosure so users know when they are interacting with an agent. With human workers, accountability is built into org charts and chains of command. Agents need an equivalent, and this domain supplies it.

Society

The broadest domain, focused on preventing misuse with wider consequences: AI-enabled cyber attacks and CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) misuse. Most enterprise agents will touch only a few of these controls, but they matter for higher-capability systems.

Insider Note: Of the 130 total controls, roughly 65 are mandatory, and 65 are optional. A straightforward agent typically needs to meet around 40 controls. A complex, multi-modal agent gets closer to 65. The scoping exercise determines which apply, so two AIUC-1 certificates can represent very different amounts of work.

Ready to Earn Your AIUC-1 Certification?

Accelerate Your AI Certification Journey

Who Needs AIUC-1 Certification?

AIUC-1 is built for any company developing or deploying agentic AI that sells into enterprises. The strongest fit is an organization whose product uses AI agents in customer-facing operations, handles confidential data through autonomous workflows, or makes decisions that affect critical business processes.

Certified systems so far include customer service agents, candidate scoring and interviewer agents, internal automation agents, summarization agents, and image generation agents. Certified organizations range from seed-stage startups to publicly traded enterprises, so company size is not the gating factor. Buyer demand is. The clearest reason to pursue AIUC-1 is that your enterprise buyers are asking for it, though early adoption also lets a vendor shape the security conversation before competitors do.

How the AIUC-1 Certification Process Works

The certification runs in distinct phases, with an accredited auditor guiding the organization through evidence collection and gap remediation.

Pre-Audit Readiness Assessment

Scoping and kickoff usually take one to two weeks. The organization works with the auditor to complete a scoping questionnaire, define which system and which controls are in scope, appoint internal leaders, and identify where current practices fall short of AIUC-1’s requirements. An internal-facing agent with limited data access will scope into far fewer controls than an external customer service agent handling sensitive data.

Evidence Collection and Documentation

The bulk of the work, typically three to five weeks. Teams gather documentation across operational practices, legal policies, and technical implementations, then remediate gaps surfaced during scoping. This phase includes hands-on testing of the system for hallucinations, prompt injection resistance, and the other risks the standard covers.

Independent Third-Party Audit

An accredited auditor reviews the evidence, conducts or reviews technical testing, and assembles the report. The audit combines upfront technical testing with a review of operational controls.

Certification Issuance

The Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company issues the certificate. Finalizing the audit, building the report, and obtaining sign-off generally takes one to three weeks. The deliverables are the certificate, a detailed audit report with third-party attestation and evaluation results, and a badge for use in a trust center or sales collateral.

Ongoing Monitoring and Renewal

Certification is not a one-time event. Technical tests are re-run at least quarterly, and the full set of technical, operational, and legal controls is re-audited annually. This continuous cadence is meant to keep safeguards current as both AI capabilities and attack techniques evolve.

Requirements for AIUC-1 Certification

There is no single checklist that applies to every applicant, because scope drives requirements. Every certification covers the mandatory controls relevant to the system, plus whichever optional controls the agent’s data access, autonomy, and modality bring into scope.

In practice, organizations need documented input and output data policies, demonstrated defenses against prompt injection and unauthorized actions, evidence of pre-deployment and adversarial testing, a defined risk taxonomy, failure response plans, and clear disclosure practices. Where there is no single industry best practice, such as data retention, the standard emphasizes clear disclosure and enforcement over mandating one specific approach.

 

How Long Does AIUC-1 Certification Take?

AIUC lists a typical timeline of four to eight weeks, depending on the maturity of the organization’s existing safeguards and governance. Its FAQ gives a slightly wider range of five to ten weeks. Organizations that already have AI governance in place, for example an ISO 42001 management system, tend to land at the faster end because much of the operational and legal groundwork already exists.

 

How Much Does AIUC-1 Certification Cost?

AIUC does not publish standard pricing, and any firm quote depends on scope, the number of controls in play, the agent’s complexity, and the auditor engaged. Cost is driven by the same factors as the timeline: a simple internal agent scoping into roughly 40 controls is a smaller engagement than a complex multi-modal agent scoping into 65, with the adversarial testing that entails.

Treat published figures from third parties with caution and get a scoped quote from an accredited auditor. As a directional anchor, AIUC-1 sits in the same tier as other independent technical audits rather than a self-attestation, so budget alongside what you would expect for a SOC 2 Type II or ISO 42001 audit, plus the cost of any remediation the readiness phase surfaces.

Pro Tip: Run a Gap Assessment

Run a gap assessment before you commit to a full audit. The readiness phase is where most of the real cost hides, because remediation work, not the audit fee, is usually the larger line item. Knowing your gaps first lets you budget accurately and avoid a stalled audit halfway through evidence collection.

How Long Is an AIUC-1 Certificate Valid?

An AIUC-1 certificate is valid for twelve months. Maintaining it requires technical testing at least every three months. Miss the quarterly cadence and the certificate lapses, even inside the twelve-month window. New requirements introduced through quarterly updates are evaluated at the next annual re-audit, so the certificate you hold reflects the version of the standard in force when you were audited.

 

Who Can Issue an Official AIUC-1 Certificate?

The Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company issues all certificates. Schellman was the first accredited auditor for the standard, and accredited auditors handle evidence collection and prepare the reports. The ongoing quarterly technical evaluations are run centrally by AIUC itself rather than by individual auditors, which the company says keeps testing consistent across all certified organizations.

This structure matters for how much weight a certificate carries, a point covered in the challenges section below.

AIUC-1 Certification vs. Other Frameworks

AIUC-1 is designed to complement existing frameworks, not replace them. It operationalizes the AI-specific frameworks and avoids duplicating the general-purpose ones.

Framework

What it covers

Certifiable?

AI-agent specific?

Relationship to AIUC-1

AIUC-1

Technical, operational, and legal controls for AI agent risk

Yes

Yes

The standard itself

SOC 2

General service organization security controls

Attestation

No

Coexists; still required for enterprise sales

ISO 42001

AI management system (governance and process)

Yes

Partly

AIUC-1 validates that the governance produces working controls

ISO 27001

Information security management system

Yes

No

Foundational security; AIUC-1 sits on top

NIST AI RMF

Voluntary AI risk-management guidance

No

Partly

AIUC-1 translates its functions into testable controls

AIUC-1 vs. SOC 2

SOC 2 covers a vendor’s general cybersecurity posture. It does not address hallucinations, prompt injection, or unauthorized tool calls. The two are complementary: SOC 2 remains table stakes for selling into enterprise, while AIUC-1 answers the AI-specific questions SOC 2 leaves open.

AIUC-1 vs. ISO 42001

ISO 42001 certifies that an organization has a responsible AI management system, the policies and processes for developing and operating AI. AIUC-1 incorporates a number of controls directly from ISO 42001 and then extends them, translating management-system requirements into auditable technical controls and adding protections against risks like hallucinations and jailbreaks. Many organizations pursue both: ISO 42001 builds the governance, AIUC-1 proves the safeguards behind it hold up under testing.

AIUC-1 vs. ISO 27001

ISO 27001 governs information security management broadly. It is foundational and agnostic to AI. AIUC-1 assumes that kind of security baseline exists and focuses on the agent-specific layer above it, so the two rarely overlap.

AIUC-1 vs. NIST AI RMF

The NIST AI Risk Management Framework provides high-level, voluntary guidance with no certification path. It tells organizations what to think about, not how to prove they have done it. AIUC-1 takes NIST’s functions and turns them into specific, testable controls, which is the piece NIST deliberately leaves open.

AIUC-1 also maps to threat models the security community already uses, including MITRE ATLAS, the OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications, and the OWASP LLM Top 10, and it maps more than 30 articles of the EU AI Act to auditable requirements.

Ready to Earn Your AIUC-1 Certification?

Accelerate Your AI Certification Journey

How to Prepare for AIUC-1 Certification

Start with scope. Decide which agent or product you are certifying and document its data flows, the tools it can call, the models and versions it runs on, and its level of autonomy. That definition determines which controls apply and shapes everything downstream.

Next, run a readiness assessment against the six domains and fix the gaps before the formal audit begins. If you already hold ISO 42001 or have a NIST AI RMF program, map what you have onto AIUC-1’s controls; much of the operational and legal evidence will carry over. Build out the technical testing capability you will need: adversarial testing for prompt injection, groundedness evaluation for hallucinations, and output moderation. Going into the audit with that infrastructure already running is what separates a four-week certification from a ten-week one.

 

Benefits of Becoming AIUC-1 Certified

The headline benefit is faster enterprise deals. A certificate, report, and evaluation results give procurement, legal, and security teams a structured way to clear AI-specific risk, which removes a common point of friction late in the sales cycle. One certified executive summed it up by saying the certificate lets them sign contracts faster because it is a clear signal of trust.

Beyond sales, the process improves the product. The measurable drops in hallucination and inappropriate-output rates that companies report during certification are real engineering wins, not marketing. AIUC-1 also carries an insurance dimension that sets it apart: certification is backed by Lloyd’s of London insurance, and AIUC underwrites the risk associated with the certified agent. That changes the incentive structure, because the body certifying the agent also takes on financial exposure if it fails.

 

Common Challenges in Achieving AIUC-1 Certification

The first challenge is technical readiness. Building reliable defenses against prompt injection and hallucination is hard engineering work, and the readiness phase often surfaces gaps that take real effort to close.

Scope ambiguity is the second: because AIUC-1 does not define “AI agent,” getting the scope right requires careful judgment, and a scope drawn too narrowly undermines the certificate’s value.

The third challenge is structural, and buyers as much as vendors should understand it. AIUC authors the standard, runs the technical evaluations, issues the certificates, and sells the AI agent insurance that the certification enables. Security researcher Zack Korman has argued that this vertical integration creates potential conflicts of interest at several steps, with the closest precedent being the issuer-pays model in credit ratings, an arrangement that contributed to inflated ratings before the 2008 financial crisis. AIUC’s counterargument is that its insurance business creates a counter-incentive, since losses on a certified agent hit AIUC directly. There is also no external accreditation body: AIUC accredits its own auditors, so calling AIUC-1 a “standard” rests on AIUC’s own authority rather than a third party like ANSI or UKAS. None of this makes the certificate worthless. It makes it evidence to interrogate rather than a guarantee to accept at face value.

Important: No certification eliminates risk from a probabilistic, fast-changing system. Just as a SOC 2 report or a penetration test does not prove a system is secure against every threat, an AIUC-1 certificate cannot guarantee an agent is safe. Treat it as tested evidence of specific controls, scoped to a specific system, at a specific point in time.

 

The Bottom Line

AIUC-1 is the first serious attempt to give AI agents the kind of independent, testable security assurance that SOC 2 gave SaaS. It audits six domains that existing frameworks miss, runs on a quarterly testing cadence built for how fast AI moves, and comes backed by insurance that puts the issuer’s own money behind the result. It is also young, self-accredited, and commercially structured in ways worth scrutinizing.

For vendors selling agentic AI into enterprises, the practical question is no longer whether AI-specific certification is coming, but whether you would rather lead the conversation or explain to a procurement team why you cannot answer it. If buyers are already asking, the answer is straightforward.

Frequently Asked Questions About AIUC-1 Certification

Is AIUC-1 certification mandatory?

No. AIUC-1 is voluntary. It is not required by law anywhere. Demand is driven by enterprise buyers who want independent assurance on AI-specific risks, not by regulation.

Yes. Certified organizations range from seed-stage startups to publicly traded enterprises. Company size does not gate eligibility; the scope and maturity of the agent’s safeguards do.

No. Like a SOC 2 report or a penetration test, AIUC-1 provides evidence that specific controls were tested, scoped to a specific system at a point in time. It cannot eliminate all risk from a probabilistic, fast-evolving system.

A certificate is valid for twelve months but depends on quarterly technical testing to stay current. Failing to maintain the quarterly cadence causes the certification to lapse before the twelve-month period ends.

No. AIUC-1 complements SOC 2, ISO 27001, and ISO 42001 rather than replacing them. It covers agent-specific risks those frameworks were not designed to address, and SOC 2 in particular remains expected for enterprise sales.

No. Customer service agents are a common use case because brand and customer data are on the line, but certified systems also include candidate scoring agents, internal automation agents, summarization agents, and image generation agents.

Through the audit and the insurance model rather than through regulation. Accredited auditors prepare reports, AIUC issues certificates and runs quarterly technical testing, and the insurance backing ties certification to real financial exposure if a certified agent fails.

Axipro Author

Picture of Pedro Dias

Pedro Dias

Pedro has been writing online for over 10 years. With experience in all things programming, cyber security, and compliance, he is our editor-in-chief at Axipro.

Blog Highlights

Explore More Articles

Compliance software collects the evidence. A consultant builds the system that evidence is meant to prove. That’s the real difference in the ISO 27001 consultant vs software decision, and most teams only figure it out after they’ve bought one and realized they still need the other. Below, we compare what each route covers, where it breaks down, and what it costs you in time, money, and your team’s hours. Short version: software on its own works for a small group of companies. For most SaaS and tech scale-ups trying to get an enterprise deal over the line, consultant-led implementation on a compliance platform is the faster and safer path to a certificate. Quick Answer: Consultant, Software, or Both? Software-only works if you already have an in-house security lead who’s taken a company through ISO/IEC 27001 before and has the time to own the project. Consultant-only still makes sense if you run mostly on-premise or legacy systems that platforms barely integrate with. For everyone else, which means most cloud-native companies under a few hundred people, a hybrid works best: a platform to handle evidence and monitoring, and a consultant to build the management system and stand behind it in front of an auditor. Here’s why. What an ISO 27001 Consultant Handles ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is a management system standard. Clauses 4 to 10 cover how you run information security, and Annex A lists 93 controls you pick from based on risk. Almost none of it is box-ticking. Most of it comes down to judgment calls about your business, and that’s what you’re paying a consultant for. Scoping, Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment Scope is the first decision you make, and the most expensive one to get wrong. Go too wide and you’ll spend months on controls for systems no customer asks about. Go too narrow and the certificate won’t get through the procurement review it was supposed to pass. A consultant scopes around the deals you’re trying to close, runs a gap analysis, and builds a risk assessment based on your real assets and threats. That’s the document auditors dig into hardest. ISMS Documentation and Policy Writing The standard asks for a specific set of documents: the ISMS scope, information security policy, risk assessment and treatment methodology, Statement of Applicability, risk treatment plan, and evidence of competence, monitoring, internal audit, and management review. A consultant writes these around how your company works day to day, instead of how a template imagines it works. Auditors check whether you follow your own procedures, so a mismatch shows up fast. Internal Audit and Certification Audit Support You need an internal audit before certification, and Clause 9.2 says the auditor has to be objective and impartial. In a small company, the people who built the ISMS can’t credibly audit it, so most teams outsource it through ISO 27001 internal audit services. A good consultant also gets your team ready for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 audits, joins the conversations that matter, and handles corrective actions if the auditor raises nonconformities.  What ISO 27001 Compliance Software Handles Compliance automation platforms, often called GRC platforms, have changed how cloud-native companies get certified. They’re very good at the repetitive, evidence-heavy side of the work. Automated Evidence Collection and Continuous Control Monitoring The platform plugs into your cloud provider, identity provider, code repos, HR system, and device management tools, then pulls evidence on its own. It’ll flag an unencrypted storage bucket, an ex-employee who still has access, or a laptop without disk encryption. For technical controls, that saves weeks of screenshots and spreadsheet tracking. Policy Templates and Annex A Control Mapping Most platforms come with a policy library and map each control to the ISO 27001 clauses and Annex A. You get a starting point and a clear view of which controls have evidence and which don’t. Auditor Access and Ongoing Compliance Tracking Auditors can log in and review evidence themselves, which cuts down fieldwork. After you’re certified, dashboards show when controls slip between surveillance audits, so you aren’t rebuilding evidence from scratch every year. Where Each Approach Falls Short Neither route covers everything by itself. The good news is that the ways each one fails are predictable, so you can plan around them. Limits of Compliance Automation Platforms A platform can tell you a control is failing. It can’t decide your scope, run your risk assessment, write a policy that matches your operations, convince your CTO to change the offboarding process, or explain to an auditor why you excluded a control from your Statement of Applicability. Templates can also make you feel further along than you are. A dashboard at 90% can hide an ISMS that won’t survive Stage 1, because the missing 10% is the management system itself. Insider Note: The Stage 1 problem we see most on software-only projects is a risk assessment copied straight from the platform’s default risk library. The risks are generic, the scores are almost identical, and nothing ties back to the company’s own assets. Auditors notice within minutes, and it weakens the Statement of Applicability that’s built on it. The other problem is ownership. Software assumes someone inside the company will drive the project. At most startups that’s a CTO or ops lead who already has a full-time job, and the subscription renews whether the work gets done or not. Limits of a Consultant-Only Approach A consultant working without automation spends billable days on things a platform does for free, like chasing screenshots, updating evidence trackers, and collecting the same proof again before every surveillance audit. You pay more and wait longer. You also end up with a program that’s only accurate on the day it’s handed over. Once the engagement ends, the evidence goes stale and year-two surveillance turns into a scramble. ISO 27001 Consultant vs Software: Side-by-Side Comparison Factor Consultant only Software only Hybrid (consultant + platform) Time to audit readiness 3 to 6+ months Highly variable; depends on internal expertise As little as 6 weeks for well-scoped

Uzbekistan regulates artificial intelligence through two documents. The first is Law ZRU-1115, signed on 21 January 2026. It amends existing legislation to define AI, stops anyone from basing decisions about people’s rights on AI output alone, and fines companies that process personal data unlawfully with AI. The second is the set of Ethical Rules approved by Order No. 3787, in force since 17 June 2026, which spell out what developers, implementers, and users actually have to do. Uzbekistan hasn’t passed a standalone AI act, and its rules don’t sort systems into risk tiers or require conformity assessments. The framework is short and blunt, and it’s already enforceable. Below we walk through what each document requires, who it applies to, how it stacks up against the EU AI Act, and what a company using AI in Uzbekistan should do next. Uzbekistan AI Regulation at a Glance (TL;DR) Instrument Date What it does Who it binds Law ZRU-1115 Signed 21 January 2026 Defines AI in law, sets general rules for AI-built information resources and systems, bans legally significant decisions based only on AI, adds fines for unlawful AI processing of personal data State bodies, organizations, website owners, anyone processing personal data with AI Order No. 3787 (Ethical Rules) Registered 14 March 2026, in force 17 June 2026 Sets eight mandatory ethical principles and lists rights and obligations for developers, implementers, and users Individuals and companies developing, implementing, or using AI in Uzbekistan Law No. 1125 (Personal Data amendments) Adopted 26 March 2026 Limits data localization to biometric, genetic, and local telecom user data, and allows cross-border transfers under conditions Personal data operators, including AI providers AI Strategy until 2030 (RP-358) 14 October 2024 Sets national targets for AI adoption, infrastructure, and skills Government bodies What Is Law ZRU-1115? The law’s official title is a mouthful: “On making additions and changes to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan in connection with the regulation of relations arising from the use of artificial intelligence.” Put simply, it’s an amending law. Instead of creating a new AI code, it writes AI into laws that were already on the books. When It Was Signed and When It Took Effect The Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis adopted the bill on 12 August 2025, and the Senate approved it on 1 November 2025. President Shavkat Mirziyoyev signed it on 21 January 2026. You can read the official text in Lex.uz, Uzbekistan’s national legislation database. The law set out the principles and the penalties. The day-to-day detail arrived later with the Ethical Rules, which came into force on 17 June 2026. For compliance planning, treat mid-June 2026 as the point when the whole framework started applying. Why Uzbekistan Amended Existing Laws Instead of Passing a Standalone AI Act Uzbekistan wants more AI, not less. Its national strategy sets numeric targets for adoption, investment, and local computing capacity, and a heavy EU-style act would have worked against them. So lawmakers kept it light. They defined AI, drew two hard lines (human control over decisions that affect people’s rights, and protection of personal data), and left the Ministry of Digital Technologies to fill in the rest through secondary rules. Businesses get less legal certainty, and the government gets to move faster. Which Laws ZRU-1115 Changes For businesses, two amendments matter most. The Law “On Informatization” (ZRU-560-II, 2003) now contains a legal definition of AI, a new article on using AI in information resources and systems, duties for website owners, and updated powers for the ministry in charge. The Code on Administrative Liability now includes an offense for processing and spreading personal data unlawfully using AI. The Legal Definition of Artificial Intelligence in Uzbekistan Under the amended Law “On Informatization,” AI is a set of technological solutions that imitate human cognitive functions, including learning on their own and solving problems, and that produce results on specific tasks comparable to what a person could do. That’s deliberately broad. It covers generative AI, machine learning classifiers, recommendation engines, and most agentic systems. The Ethical Rules add a narrower term, the AI system: software built on AI that can find, collect, store, analyze, process, evaluate, and use data, and make decisions on its own based on that data. If your product makes a decision from data, or shapes one, assume it counts. Key Rules Introduced by Law ZRU-1115 General Principles for Using AI in Information Systems and Resources The new article in the Law “On Informatization” starts from harm. Information resources created with AI, and information systems running on AI, must not harm people’s life, health, freedom, honor, or dignity, or violate their other inalienable rights. The standard is short and open-ended. It gives regulators something to enforce against without saying in advance what counts as harm. Principle-based rules like this deserve to be taken seriously precisely because the edges are undefined. Human Oversight: No Decisions on Rights and Freedoms Based Solely on AI Most coverage leads with this provision, and it’s easy to see why. When someone makes a legally significant decision that affects human rights and freedoms, they can’t rely only on conclusions produced by AI systems or AI-built information resources. AI can feed into the decision, but a person has to make it. That applies to loan denials, benefit eligibility, hiring rejections, licensing outcomes, and disciplinary action. In each case, someone needs to look at the AI output and own the final call. Insider Note: In AI governance engagements, teams rarely struggle to show that a review step exists. What they struggle to show is that the reviewer could disagree, and sometimes did. If a human clicks “approve” on every AI recommendation and nobody ever records an override, auditors will see automation with a signature on top. Build the override path and log when people use it, starting on day one. Powers of the Authorized State Body (Ministry of Digital Technologies) ZRU-1115 makes the Ministry of Digital Technologies the authorized state body for AI. Among its new jobs, it’s

You can get a SaaS company ready for a SOC 2 audit in six weeks, but you’ll feel every one of them. Most published timelines say three to six months. For a company with no project owner, no identity provider, and nothing written down, that’s about right. A cloud-native startup that already has the basics in place and can protect some time is a different story, and it can fit the work into six hard weeks. This plan walks through that route one week at a time. Each week has an owner, an hour estimate, and a clear test for when it’s finished. The free Google Sheet version turns the plan into a tracker you can hand out to owners and update in your weekly standup. Before you start, know what you’re signing up for. At the end of week 6 you’ll be audit-ready, which isn’t the same as holding a Type II report. Nobody can get you a Type II in six weeks. This is also the do-it-yourself route, and it takes a lot of hours. We’ll show you where those hours go and what the faster option looks like. Is Six Weeks Realistic for Your Company? Six weeks works when most of the plumbing already exists and your job is to formalize it, fill the gaps, and prove it all works. It falls apart when you’re building the foundations and documenting them at the same time. Go through this table honestly before you promise a customer a date. Six weeks is realistic if… Plan for 10 to 16 weeks if… Your product runs on a major cloud provider You host on-premise or across several data centers You already use an identity provider with SSO Every tool has its own login and password You have fewer than about 50 employees You have multiple offices, subsidiaries, or products in scope One named person owns the project with 10 to 15 hours a week Compliance is “everyone’s job,” so in practice nobody owns it An engineer can give you 15 to 20 hours in weeks 3 and 4 Engineering is fully committed to a launch You only need the Security criteria You need Availability, Confidentiality, or Privacy on day one Landing mostly in the right-hand column doesn’t mean you should throw the plan out. Give each week two weeks instead of one and follow the same order. What “SOC 2 Ready” Means at the End of Week 6 SOC 2 doesn’t give you a certificate. An independent CPA firm examines your controls against the AICPA Trust Services Criteria and writes a report, and which of the two report types you go for decides what you can show a buyer after week 6. A Type I report checks whether your controls are designed properly on a single date. Once you’re ready, a Type I audit can start almost right away. A Type II report checks whether those controls kept working over an observation period of at least three months, and usually six to twelve. Most enterprise procurement teams want Type II in the end. Being “ready” at the end of this plan means your in-scope controls are in place, you can pull evidence for any of them on request, and your auditor is booked. From there you either start a Type I audit or open your Type II observation window. Plenty of buyers will sign with a Type I report plus a letter from your auditor saying the Type II period is underway. Important: The Type II clock doesn’t start until your controls are running. If readiness slips by a week, your Type II report slips by a week too. Founders who tell a prospect “we’ll have SOC 2 in Q3” often forget this and end up renegotiating the deal. Before Week 1: Four Decisions to Make First Settle these before the clock starts. If you change any of them halfway through, you’ll redo work. Scope. Decide which systems, teams, and data the report covers. For most SaaS companies that’s the production environment, the code repository, the identity provider, customer data stores, and any support tools that touch customer data. Corporate systems that never see customer data can usually stay out. Trust Services Criteria. Security (also called the Common Criteria) is mandatory. Availability, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity, and Privacy are optional. Report type. Pick Type I if a deal is blocked right now and the buyer will accept it. If there’s no deadline, go straight to Type II. You’ll need it eventually, and skipping Type I saves you an audit fee. Owner and tooling. Name one person who’s accountable for the plan, and decide where your controls and evidence will live. The tooling choice gets its own section below. Pro Tip: Adding Criteria Only add optional criteria when a customer contract or security questionnaire asks for them. Each one brings more controls to set up and more evidence to collect, and you can widen the scope in next year’s audit. Spreadsheet or Compliance Software: Choosing Your Tracking Tool Every SOC 2 program needs a system of record, meaning one place where each control, its owner, its status, and its evidence live. You can run it yourself in a spreadsheet or a GRC platform, or have a consultant implement it for you. The right choice depends mostly on which report you’re after and how much of your team’s time you can spare. A spreadsheet is free and familiar. It also makes you understand your own environment before you automate any of it. For a Type I, or for a small team with a tight scope, a well-built spreadsheet can take you all the way to the audit. Axipro’s free GRC workbook for SOC 2 and ISO 27001 covers all 33 SOC 2 Common Criteria plus the optional criteria, with evidence, risk, policy, and gap trackers built in. It has no macros and opens straight in Google Sheets or Excel. A GRC platform connects to your cloud, identity provider, code repository, and HR system.