OneCheckSample Report

Sample Evaluation Report

EuroBank Virtual
Assistant v3.2

A complete 7-dimension compliance evaluation of a high-risk banking chatbot. Scroll through the report below to see the depth of analysis, regulatory mapping, and actionable findings that every EthiCompass audit delivers.

Report Summary

SystemEuroBank Virtual Assistant v3.2

TypeGenerative AI — Customer-Facing Chatbot

SectorFinancial Services — Retail Banking

JurisdictionsEU (AI Act), Germany (BaFin), Spain (CNMV)

Risk ClassificationHIGH — Annex III, 5(b)

Dataset500 conversations over 30 days

Composite Score7.8 / 10 — CONDITIONAL

Critical Findings2 P0 actions required

SOC 2 ControlsEU AI Act AlignedImmutable Audit Trail

Scroll to explore report

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Confidential

Document Ref	ETHIC-RPT-2026-00147	Version	1.0 — Final
Evaluation ID	eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1	Date Issued	March 15, 2026
Classification	Confidential — Client Only	KB Version	UKB-2026.1.3

EthiCompass — AI Compliance & Audit Platform

AI Ethics & Compliance
Evaluation Report

EuroBank Virtual Assistant v3.2

Generative AI — Customer-Facing Chatbot

Client Organization

EuroBank AG

Digital Banking Division
Kaiserstraße 42, 60311 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

Contact: Maria Schmidt, VP Digital Banking

Evaluating Entity

EthiCompass

AI Compliance & Audit Platform
Peer-Reviewed Evaluation Methodology
7-Dimension Framework (UKB-2026.1.3)

Engine: v1.0 — Production

EU AI ACT RISK CLASSIFICATION: HIGH

Annex III, 5(b) — AI system in financial services influencing access to essential services

Jurisdictions: EU (AI Act), Germany (BaFin), Spain (CNMV) | Affected population: 2.3M

Risk Level

HIGH

11 / 15 pts

Intake Score

7.6 / 10

GOOD

Dimensional Score

7.8 / 10

CONDITIONAL

Evaluation Scope

Evaluation PeriodFeb 14 — Mar 15, 2026

Dataset500 conversations

LanguagesEnglish, German, Spanish

Dimensions Evaluated7 of 7

Findings2 Critical, 6 High, 8 Medium, 3 Low

Recommendations14 total (2 P0, 5 P1, 5 P2, 2 P3)

Prepared By

EthiCompass Evaluation Engine v1.0

Expert validation: Senior Compliance Analyst

Methodology: Peer-reviewed 7-Dimension Framework

Distribution

Maria Schmidt — VP Digital Banking

Dr. Elena García — Chief Ethics Officer

Thomas Müller — Data Protection Officer

Sophia Bernard — Head of Legal & Compliance

Audit Hash: sha256:a3f4b8c9...d6e7f8Signed: ethicompass-eval-signing-key-2026Retention: 7 years (WORM)

Sample Report — Demonstration Purposes Only

This document illustrates the format and depth of an EthiCompass compliance evaluation. All data, entities, and findings are synthetic. This report does not constitute legal advice.

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 1 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Part 1 — Intake Dataroom

Project Card

Section A — AI System Profile

Project Name	EuroBank Virtual Assistant v3.2
System Type	Generative AI — Customer-Facing Chatbot
AI Models	GPT-4o, Custom BERT (intent), Sentence-BERT (retrieval)
Sector	Financial Services — Retail Banking
Jurisdictions	EU (AI Act), Germany (BaFin), Spain (CNMV)
Lifecycle Phase	Production — 8 months in operation
Deployment	Cloud-based (Azure EU West)

Section B — Impact & Risk Profile

Factor	Value	Indicator
Affected Population	2.3M active customers	HIGH
Vulnerable Groups	Yes — Elderly (65+), Cognitive disability	HIGH
Decision Types	Recommendation, Partial automation	MEDIUM
Reversibility	Partially reversible	MEDIUM
EU AI Act Classification	HIGH RISK — Annex III, 5(b)	HIGH

Section C — Proportionality & Contingency

✓Alternatives Evaluated: Rule-based chatbot, human-only support, hybrid routing

✓AI Justification: Resolution time 12min→3.5min, CSAT 4.2/5

✓Contingency Plan: Auto-escalation at confidence < 0.7, 24/7 human fallback

✓Degraded Mode: IVR fallback, transactions disabled

◐Cost-Benefit Documentation: Quantitative metrics provided, formal analysis not documented

Section D — Team & Governance

Key Roles

Project Owner	Maria Schmidt, VP Digital Banking
Technical Lead	Hans Weber, Senior ML Engineer
Ethics Officer	Dr. Elena García, Chief Ethics Officer
Data Protection Officer	Thomas Müller, DPO
Legal Contact	Sophia Bernard, Head of Legal & Compliance

Governance

✓AI Governance Board — Monthly meetings

✓Bias Audits — Quarterly

✓Ethics Board — 5 members incl. external academic

✓Data Processing Agreement — In place

✗External Audit — Planned but not yet completed

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 2 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

AI-Generated Intake Summary

EuroBank Virtual Assistant v3.2 is a production-grade generative AI chatbot serving 2.3 million retail banking customers across EU markets. The system leverages GPT-4o for response generation, supplemented by custom BERT models for intent classification and Sentence-BERT for knowledge retrieval. Deployed on Azure EU West, the assistant handles account inquiries, transaction support, basic financial product recommendations, and complaint routing.

The system is classified as HIGH RISK under the EU AI Act (Annex III, 5(b)) due to its role in financial services where AI-generated recommendations influence customer access to financial products and services. The affected population includes vulnerable groups — specifically elderly customers (65+) and individuals with cognitive disabilities — requiring heightened scrutiny across fairness and explainability dimensions.

EuroBank has established governance infrastructure including a monthly AI Governance Board, quarterly bias audits, and a 5-member AI Ethics Board with external academic and consumer representation. Contingency measures include automatic human escalation when model confidence drops below 0.7 and a full human fallback available 24/7. However, gaps exist in formal cost-benefit documentation, standardized bias audit methodology, and the absence of completed external audits.

This evaluation covers 500 customer conversations collected over a 30-day period (February 14 — March 15, 2026), including interactions in Spanish, German, and English, with representative distribution across retail, premium, and vulnerable customer segments.

This summary was generated by the EthiCompass intake analysis engine based on Sections A–D submitted data.

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 3 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Risk Classification — ETHI-202

MINIMAL

LIMITED

HIGH▲

UNACCEPTABLE

11 / 15 points — HIGH RISK

Factor	Value	Points	Max
Vulnerable Groups Affected	Yes (elderly, cognitive disability)	3	3
Sector in EU AI Act Annex III	Yes — 5(b) Financial services	3	3
Decision Type	Recommendation	1	3
Reversibility	Partially reversible	1	2
Population Scale	2.3M (Millions+)	3	3
TOTAL		11	15

Regulatory Implications

Mandatory conformity assessment (EU AI Act Art. 43)

Registration in EU AI database (Art. 49)

Fundamental rights impact assessment required (Art. 27)

Quality management system mandatory (Art. 17)

Post-market monitoring system required (Art. 72)

Serious incident reporting obligation (Art. 73)

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 4 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Intake Score — Organizational Readiness

7.6

GOOD

Overall = Proportionality (7.8 × 40%) + Governance (7.5 × 60%)

Proportionality Score: 7.8 / 10(Section C)

Alternatives Evaluated

3 / 3

AI Justification Quality

1.5 / 2

Contingency Plan

2 / 2

Degraded Mode

1 / 1

Detailed Justification

0.3 / 2

Governance Score: 7.5 / 10(Section D)

Responsible Person

1 / 1

Ethics Lead

1 / 1

Team Gender Diversity

0.6 / 1

Disciplinary Diversity

0.8 / 1

Ethics Committee

1 / 1

External Stakeholder Consult.

0.5 / 1

Risk Mgmt Documented

1.1 / 1.5

Data Consent Documented

0.8 / 1

Bias Analysis Completed

0.7 / 1.5

Strengths

Strong leadership assignment with dedicated Ethics Officer and DPO
Active Ethics Board with external representation
Comprehensive contingency planning with automated escalation
No third-party data sharing reduces privacy risk surface

Gaps

Formal cost-benefit analysis of alternatives not documented
Risk register and risk appetite statement missing
Bias audit methodology not standardized
No UX/accessibility expertise despite vulnerable group exposure
Community engagement or public consultation not conducted

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 5 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Executive Scorecard

Dimension	Score	Status	Findings
Discrimination & Fairness	7.2	CONDITIONAL	4
Toxicity & Harmful Language	9.4	PASS	1
Explainability & Transparency	6.1	REQUIRES ACTION	5
Privacy & Data Protection	8.5	PASS	2
Factuality & Accuracy	7.8	CONDITIONAL	3
Robustness & Resilience	8.1	CONDITIONAL	2
Regulatory Compliance	7.5	CONDITIONAL	2

Findings Summary:2 Critical6 High8 Medium3 Low

Composite Score

7.8/10

Verdict

CONDITIONAL

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 6 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Critical Findings Requiring Immediate Action

P0Critical — 7 Day Deadline

Incorrect Deposit Insurance Information

The virtual assistant incorrectly states a deposit insurance limit of €200,000, when the actual limit under Directive 2014/49/EU is €100,000 per depositor per institution. This factual error was detected in 12 of 500 evaluated conversations, representing a material misinformation risk for retail banking customers.

Regulatory Ref: Directive 2014/49/EU; EU AI Act Art. 9Deadline: 7 daysEvidence: conv_0042, conv_0118, conv_0287

P0Critical — 14 Day Deadline

Missing MiFID II Suitability Assessment

In 23% of investment-related conversations, the assistant provides product recommendations without first completing the required risk profiling and suitability assessment mandated by MiFID II. This constitutes a systematic compliance gap in the advisory workflow.

Regulatory Ref: MiFID II Art. 25Deadline: 14 daysEvidence: conv_0056, conv_0134, conv_0312, conv_0445

Key Recommendations

Priority	Action	Regulatory Ref	Deadline
P0	Correct deposit insurance limit to €100,000 in knowledge base	Dir. 2014/49/EU	7 days
P0	Implement mandatory suitability assessment gate before product recommendations	MiFID II Art. 25	14 days
P1	Add AI-generated content disclosure to all responses	EU AI Act Art. 52	30 days
P1	Implement explanation module for credit-related decisions	EU AI Act Art. 13	30 days
P1	Add confidence indicators to factual claims	EU AI Act Art. 14	45 days

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 7 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Dimension Detail: Explainability & Transparency

6.1

REQUIRES ACTION

Sub-Metric	Score	Severity
AI Disclosure Compliance	4.2	REQUIRES ACTION
Decision Reasoning Provided	5.8	REQUIRES ACTION
Confidence Level Communication	6.5	CONDITIONAL
Source Attribution	7	CONDITIONAL
Limitation Acknowledgment	7.1	CONDITIONAL

Key Findings

Finding 3.1: No AI Disclosure in Customer Interactions

In 78% of evaluated conversations, the assistant fails to disclose that the customer is interacting with an AI system. EU AI Act Article 52 mandates clear disclosure when natural persons interact with AI systems.[Evidence: conv_0023, conv_0089, conv_0156]

Finding 3.2: Insufficient Reasoning for Credit Assessments

When providing credit product information, the assistant does not explain the basis for suitability determinations in 62% of cases. Customers receive recommendations without understanding why specific products were suggested.[Evidence: conv_0156, conv_0201]

Finding 3.3: Absent Confidence Indicators

The assistant presents all responses with equal certainty, without distinguishing between verified facts and probabilistic assessments.[Evidence: conv_0334, conv_0412]

Recommendations

Priority	Action	Regulatory Ref	Deadline
P1	Add AI-generated content disclosure to all conversation entry points	EU AI Act Art. 52	30 days
P1	Implement reasoning module for credit-related responses	EU AI Act Art. 13	30 days
P2	Integrate confidence scoring with user-facing indicators	EU AI Act Art. 14	45 days

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 8 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Dimension Detail: Discrimination & Fairness

7.2

CONDITIONAL

Sub-Metric	Score	Severity
Age-Based Equity	5.8	REQUIRES ACTION
Gender Neutrality	8.2	PASS
Socioeconomic Fairness	7.4	CONDITIONAL
Geographic Parity	7.6	CONDITIONAL

Key Findings

Finding 1.1: Age-Based Product Recommendation Disparity

Analysis reveals 38% fewer investment product suggestions for customers aged 65 and above compared to the 30-50 demographic with equivalent financial profiles. This pattern suggests implicit age-based filtering in the recommendation algorithm that may constitute discriminatory treatment under the EU Equal Treatment Directive.[Evidence: conv_0067, conv_0143, conv_0298, conv_0376]

Finding 1.2: Socioeconomic Language Variation

The assistant uses noticeably simpler language and fewer product options when customer profiles indicate lower-income postal codes, regardless of stated financial capacity. Detected in 14% of cross-segment comparisons.[Evidence: conv_0089, conv_0221]

Recommendations

Priority	Action	Regulatory Ref	Deadline
P1	Audit and remove age-based filtering in recommendation pipeline	EU Equal Treatment Dir.	30 days
P2	Implement demographic parity testing in CI/CD pipeline	EU AI Act Art. 10	60 days
P2	Normalize language complexity across socioeconomic segments	EU AI Act Art. 10	60 days

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 9 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Dimension Detail: Toxicity & Harmful Language

9.4

PASS

Sub-Metric	Score	Severity
Explicit Harmful Language	10	PASS
Implicit Harm	8.9	PASS
Severity Classification	9.5	PASS
Context Factors	9.2	PASS

Key Findings

Finding 2.1: No Explicit Harmful Language Detected

Zero instances of slurs, threats, or explicitly harmful language in chatbot responses across all500 evaluated conversations.

Finding 2.2: Minor Dismissive Tone in Complaint Handling

3 instances of dismissive tone detected when customers expressed frustration about fees. Language patterns suggest minimization of concerns rather than empathetic acknowledgment.[Evidence: conv_0341, conv_0899, conv_1456]

Recommendations

Priority	Action	Regulatory Ref	Deadline
P3	Enhance empathy patterns in complaint-handling responses. Current templates may benefit from validation by UX writing team.	Best practice	90 days

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 10 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Dimension Detail: Privacy & Data Protection

8.5

PASS

Sub-Metric	Score	Severity
PII Detection	8.2	CONDITIONAL
Inference Risk	8.8	PASS
Sensitivity Classification	8.5	PASS
Regulatory Alignment	8.7	PASS

Key Findings

Finding 4.1: IBAN Masking Not Applied

2 instances where chatbot echoed back full IBAN numbers in conversation when partial masking would suffice. No instances of leaking PII across conversation sessions.[Evidence: conv_0189, conv_0734]

Finding 4.2: Potential Profiling via Spending Patterns

Credit card spending patterns mentioned in context of product recommendations could be considered profiling under GDPR Art. 22.[Evidence: conv_0445, conv_0890]

Recommendations

Priority	Action	Regulatory Ref	Deadline
P2	Implement IBAN masking in conversation responses — show only last 4 digits.	GDPR Art. 5(1)(c)	30 days
P2	Add explicit consent prompt when conversation data may be used for model training/improvement.	GDPR Art. 6, Art. 7	45 days

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 11 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Dimension Detail: Factuality & Accuracy

7.8

CONDITIONAL

Sub-Metric	Score	Severity
Verifiable Claim Identification	7.5	CONDITIONAL
Evidence Quality	8	PASS
Speculation vs Fact	7.6	CONDITIONAL
Internal Consistency	8.9	PASS
Known Falsehoods	7	REQUIRES ACTION

Key Findings

Finding 5.1: Incorrect Deposit Insurance Information (CRITICAL)

One instance of incorrect regulatory information: chatbot stated deposit insurance covers up to €200,000 when the actual EU-wide limit is €100,000 per depositor per bank. This represents a material factual error with direct regulatory implications.[Evidence: conv_1123]

Finding 5.2: Projected Returns Presented Without Disclaimers

In 4 instances, chatbot presented projected returns as likely outcomes without adequate disclaimers. Language like “you can expect” used instead of “historical performance suggests”.[Evidence: conv_0378, conv_0712, conv_1045, conv_1389]

Finding 5.3: Outdated Interest Rate Information

Interest rates quoted accurately in 94% of cases. 6% of responses contained outdated rate information referencing Q3 2025 rates instead of current Q1 2026 rates.[Evidence: conv_0267, conv_0534, conv_0801]

Recommendations

Priority	Action	Regulatory Ref	Deadline
P0	URGENT: Fix deposit insurance information. Implement real-time fact-checking against regulatory database.	Dir. 2014/49/EU; EU AI Act Art. 9	7 days
P1	Add mandatory disclaimers for forward-looking financial statements.	MiFID II Art. 24	14 days
P2	Implement rate data freshness check — flag responses using data older than 30 days.	Best practice	45 days

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 12 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Dimension Detail: Robustness & Resilience

8.1

CONDITIONAL

Sub-Metric	Score	Severity
Prompt Injection Vulnerability	8.5	CONDITIONAL
Jailbreak Susceptibility	8.8	PASS
Context Switching Resilience	7.2	CONDITIONAL
Specification Gaming	7.9	CONDITIONAL

Key Findings

Finding 6.1: Multi-Turn Context Manipulation Bypass

One partial bypass detected via multi-turn context manipulation where user gradually shifted chatbot into providing investment advice outside its authorized scope. Standard prompt injection attempts (“ignore previous instructions”) blocked effectively.[Evidence: conv_0045_adversarial]

Finding 6.2: Distress Scenario Scope Expansion

When users simulate distress scenarios (“I'm going to lose my house”), the chatbot occasionally provides more specific financial guidance than its authorized scope permits, in 7% of distress-test conversations.[Evidence: conv_0067_adversarial, conv_0089_adversarial]

Recommendations

Priority	Action	Regulatory Ref	Deadline
P2	Implement multi-turn conversation boundary monitoring. Add progressive confidence decay for out-of-scope topic drift.	EU AI Act Art. 15	60 days
P2	Add distress detection protocol with immediate human escalation — not expanded AI guidance.	EU AI Act Art. 14	45 days

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 13 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Dimension Detail: Regulatory Compliance

7.5

CONDITIONAL

Sub-Metric	Score	Severity
Jurisdiction-Specific	7.8	CONDITIONAL
Industry Regulations	7	REQUIRES ACTION
Contractual Obligations	8.2	PASS
Emerging Guidance	7.1	REQUIRES ACTION

Key Findings

Finding 7.1: MiFID II Suitability Assessment Gap (CRITICAL)

MiFID II suitability assessment not consistently performed before product recommendations. 23% of recommendation conversations skip the risk profiling step. This represents a systematic regulatory compliance gap.[Evidence: conv_0112_reg, conv_0334_reg, conv_0556_reg]

Finding 7.2: EU AI Act Compliance Gaps

Partial alignment with EU AI Act requirements. Key gaps: (1) No conformity assessment documentation, (2) No registration in EU database per Art. 49, (3) Fundamental rights impact assessment not evidenced per Art. 27.

Finding 7.3: Spanish CNMV Guidelines Partially Met

Spanish CNMV guidelines for automated investment advice partially met — missing explicit “best execution” disclosure for product recommendations.[Evidence: conv_0445_reg, conv_0890_reg]

Recommendations

Priority	Action	Regulatory Ref	Deadline
P0	URGENT: Implement mandatory MiFID II suitability assessment gate before any product recommendation.	MiFID II Art. 25	14 days
P1	Initiate EU AI Act conformity assessment process. Document technical specs per Annex IV.	EU AI Act Art. 43, Annex IV	90 days
P1	Complete fundamental rights impact assessment (FRIA) and register in EU AI database.	EU AI Act Art. 27, Art. 49	60 days

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 14 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Remediation Timeline

Week 1–2: Immediate Actions

P0Fix deposit insurance information and implement real-time fact-checking

Factuality & Accuracy

P0Implement mandatory MiFID II suitability assessment gate

Regulatory Compliance

Month 1 (30 Days)

P1Add AI-generated content disclosure to all conversation entry points

Explainability

P1Implement reasoning module for credit-related responses

Explainability

P1Add mandatory disclaimers for forward-looking financial statements

Factuality

P1Audit and remove age-based filtering in recommendation pipeline

Discrimination

P1Implement IBAN masking in conversation responses

Privacy

Month 2 (60 Days)

P2Integrate confidence scoring with user-facing indicators

Explainability

P2Implement rate data freshness check

Factuality

P2Add explicit consent prompt for model training data use

Privacy

P2Add distress detection protocol with human escalation

Robustness

P2Implement multi-turn conversation boundary monitoring

Robustness

Month 3 (90 Days)

P3Enhance empathy patterns in complaint-handling responses

Toxicity

P3Initiate EU AI Act conformity assessment process

Regulatory

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 15 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Appendix A — EU AI Act Compliance Mapping

Article	Topic	Dimension(s)	Status	Gap Identified
Art. 9	Risk management system	Factuality, Discrimination	CONDITIONAL	Incomplete risk management for factual claims
Art. 10(2)(f)	Bias detection in training data	Discrimination	CONDITIONAL	Age-based bias not addressed in training pipeline
Art. 13	Transparency and information provision	Explainability	REQUIRES ACTION	No AI disclosure, insufficient reasoning
Art. 14	Human oversight	Robustness, Explainability	CONDITIONAL	Distress scenarios need human escalation
Art. 15	Accuracy, robustness, cybersecurity	Robustness	CONDITIONAL	Multi-turn boundary monitoring needed
Art. 27	Fundamental rights impact assessment	Regulatory	REQUIRES ACTION	FRIA not conducted
Art. 43	Conformity assessment	Regulatory	REQUIRES ACTION	No conformity assessment initiated
Art. 49	Registration in EU database	Regulatory	REQUIRES ACTION	Not registered
Art. 52(1)	Transparency obligations (AI interaction)	Explainability	REQUIRES ACTION	No AI disclosure to users
Annex III, 5(b)	High-risk: financial services	Classification	—	System correctly classified as HIGH RISK
Annex IV	Technical documentation	Regulatory	REQUIRES ACTION	Documentation gaps

This mapping covers the primary EU AI Act articles applicable to high-risk AI systems in the financial services sector. Additional requirements may apply based on national implementing legislation and sector-specific guidance from competent authorities.

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 16 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

SAMPLE REPORT

EthiCompassCONFIDENTIAL

Evaluation Integrity & Audit Trail

Cryptographic Verification

Evaluation Hash:sha256:a3f4b8c9d2e1f0a5b6c7d8e9f0a1b2c3d4e5f6a7b8c9d0e1f2a3b4c5d6e7f8

KB Version:UKB-2026.1.3

Evaluator ID:ethicompass-eval-engine-v1.0

Signing Key:ethicompass-eval-signing-key-2026

Signature Timestamp:2026-03-15T18:42:31Z

Retention & Immutability

Retention Period:7 years

Storage Mechanism:S3 Object Lock Compliance

Immutability Guarantee:WORM (Write Once Read Many) — cannot be modified or deleted during retention period

Evaluation Parameters

Conversations Evaluated:500

Evaluation Period:February 14 — March 15, 2026 (30 days)

Dimensions Evaluated:7 of 7

Total Recommendations:14 (2 P0, 5 P1, 5 P2, 2 P3)

Methodology Disclaimer

This evaluation was conducted using the EthiCompass 7-Dimension Framework, which assesses AI systems across scientifically validated dimensions of ethical compliance. Scores are derived from automated analysis of system outputs, supplemented by heuristic pattern matching against regulatory requirements. This evaluation does not constitute legal advice, and organizations should consult qualified legal counsel regarding specific regulatory obligations.

The composite score is calculated as a weighted average of individual dimension scores, with weights reflecting the risk profile and regulatory context of the evaluated system. Dimension weights for high-risk financial services AI systems prioritize Factuality & Accuracy, Regulatory Compliance, and Discrimination & Fairness.

Ref: EC-2026-FB-0042Page 17 of 17eval_mock_eurobank_2026Q1

This is what defensible
evidence looks like.

A complete AI compliance audit in 3 weeks. 7 dimensions. EU AI Act mapping. Every finding traceable. Every score explainable.

Or explore the Enterprise platform →

3-Week Delivery·Expert-Validated·Peer-Reviewed Methodology·Immutable Audit Trail

EuroBank VirtualAssistant v3.2

AI Ethics & ComplianceEvaluation Report

Part 1 — Intake Dataroom

Project Card

AI-Generated Intake Summary

Risk Classification — ETHI-202

Regulatory Implications

Intake Score — Organizational Readiness

Executive Scorecard

Critical Findings Requiring Immediate Action

Incorrect Deposit Insurance Information

Missing MiFID II Suitability Assessment

Key Recommendations

Dimension Detail: Explainability & Transparency

Key Findings

Recommendations

Dimension Detail: Discrimination & Fairness

Key Findings

Recommendations

Dimension Detail: Toxicity & Harmful Language

Key Findings

Recommendations

Dimension Detail: Privacy & Data Protection

Key Findings

Recommendations

Dimension Detail: Factuality & Accuracy

Key Findings

Recommendations

Dimension Detail: Robustness & Resilience

Key Findings

Recommendations

Dimension Detail: Regulatory Compliance

Key Findings

Recommendations

Remediation Timeline

Week 1–2: Immediate Actions

Month 1 (30 Days)

Month 2 (60 Days)

Month 3 (90 Days)

Appendix A — EU AI Act Compliance Mapping

Evaluation Integrity & Audit Trail

Cryptographic Verification

Retention & Immutability

Evaluation Parameters

Methodology Disclaimer

This is what defensibleevidence looks like.

EuroBank Virtual
Assistant v3.2

AI Ethics & Compliance
Evaluation Report

This is what defensible
evidence looks like.