Engineering needs more detail
A policy sets the direction, but teams still need to decide what to change. Different assumptions can remain unnoticed until review.
For compliance teams
Help engineering implement what compliance requires.
Review source-linked requirements, control mappings and evidence expectations so that your team’s judgement carries through into implementation and review.
From interpretation to implementation
A policy can be clear while the implementation questions remain.
Engineering needs more detail
A policy sets the direction, but teams still need to decide what to change. Different assumptions can remain unnoticed until review.
Evidence has to be reconstructed
A reviewer asks how a requirement was addressed. The answer is spread across tickets, configuration records and past conversations.
Another regulation brings more preparation
Your team needs to assess the obligations, explain their implications and agree what implementation and evidence should look like.
Keeping requirements, guidance and evidence expectations together gives those discussions a shared reference.
A requirement you can review
Review the requirement, its control mappings and its evidence expectations together.
Give compliance and engineering a common reference for defining and assessing the work.
For covered regulations, RuleMesh provides structured requirements linked to the provisions they come from. Each requirement brings together supporting control mappings and evidence expectations for review.
Compliance checklists support the person responsible for sign-off, alongside the guidance engineers use for implementation.
requirement · gdpr · art-32(2)Example
OBLIGATION
id: "itreq-32016R0679-art-32-para-32_2-req-1"
cite: "GDPR Art. 32(2)"
source: "eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj"
riskLevel: "High"
responsibleRole: "Data Protection Officer / Risk Manager"
description: Maintain a risk register and conduct structured risk assessments that explicitly identify and document risks to personal data including accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure, or unauthorised access — covering data in all states (transmitted, stored, or otherwise processed).
REQUIREMENT
justification.mapsTo: "NIST SP800-53 RA-3 (Risk Assessment) — High baseline"
SHALL conduct and maintain structured risk assessments
FOR personal data processing risks
INCLUDING accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration,
unauthorised disclosure and unauthorised access
IN all data states (transmitted, stored, processed)
USING a documented risk register with threat mapping
and control coverage
EVIDENCE EXPECTATION
· Risk register documenting threats to personal data (destruction, loss, alteration, disclosure, access)
· Data flow diagrams covering data in transit, at rest, and in processing
· Threat model documentation mapping threats to personal data assets
· Risk assessment reports with likelihood and severity ratings
· Control mapping records showing mitigations for identified risks
COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
· Does the risk register explicitly document risks of accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure, and unauthorised access?
· Does the risk assessment cover personal data in all states — transmitted, stored, and otherwise processed?
· Are data flow diagrams maintained to identify all personal data transmission and storage points?
· Are risk likelihood and severity ratings documented and used to prioritise controls?
· Is the risk register reviewed and updated when processing activities change?
sign_off: "named human reviewer"
// agents may submit evidence and update progress; only a human marks an item verified
Example requirement. Illustrative data.
Questions the team needs to resolve
Connect the source requirement to the implementation decision.
What does the regulation require?
Check the requirement against its source provision and assess how it applies to your organisation.
How can the team address it?
Review relevant control mappings and implementation guidance in the context of the system.
What evidence will support review?
Establish what needs to be demonstrated before the team begins collecting or submitting records.
Where specialist time goes
Reuse reviewed requirements across projects.
Teams can use a shared requirement instead of recreating its explanation in every ticket, wiki page and review response.
That gives specialists more time to assess what is different: the system’s purpose, its implementation, any exceptions and changes to the regulatory context. Previous work provides a starting point for the next review.
Ongoing regulatory intelligence
See which requirements a regulatory change affects.
Review amendments, guidance and court rulings alongside the requirements they relate to.
RuleMesh maps regulatory developments to affected requirements. Your team can review the change, assess its implications and decide whether implementation or evidence needs attention.
Regulatory Intelligence (INTEL) brings this context into the same structure used to define and review the work.
Evidence and review
Keep the requirement, evidence and review status connected.
Make it easier to see what has been submitted and what still needs attention.
When a reviewer asks how a requirement was addressed, the team can follow the submitted evidence back to the requirement and implementation work.
That record supports review without removing the need to assess whether the evidence is sufficient. Agents can submit evidence and update progress, but only a human can mark an item as verified.
Where teams use the requirements
Keep compliance and engineering working from the same source.
Jira app
Connect requirements to implementation work and evidence in engineering tickets.
Live on the Atlassian Marketplace
MCP server
Give coding agents access to relevant requirements, control mappings and evidence expectations while they work.
Available now
API
Bring structured requirements into internal tools and review interfaces.
Design-partner preview
Cloud policy output
Use requirements to inform policy output for Terraform, OPA and Azure Policy.
Design-partner preview
The Jira app is live. More issue and project integrations are in development.
Regulatory coverage
Use a consistent structure as coverage grows.
Regulatory coverage is expanding across the EU, US and Australia. Every regulation released during your subscription is included at no extra cost.
New coverage uses the same structure for requirements, control mappings and evidence expectations, so that teams have a familiar starting point for assessment and implementation.
This page is also published for machine readers: rulemesh.com/for-compliance-teams.md