-1.png)
The rapid advancement of hugely disruptive technologies has culminated in a fork in the road for regulated industries. Historically, institutions in these industries have relied on legacy systems and the manual processes familiar to them because “that’s what’s always been done.” But this approach could come at a steep cost: Institutions that choose inertia may watch from the sidelines as competitors uncover AI’s potential for innovation, efficiency, and customer value.
The alternate path requires navigating the inevitable challenges of AI implementation, change management, and regulatory uncertainty. But organizations that venture into this territory thoughtfully and deliberately could discover capabilities that fundamentally redefine what’s possible, from hyper-personalized customer experiences at scale to risk models that adapt in real-time to operational efficiencies that seemed impossible just a few years ago.
Companies that move strategically and thoughtfully, yet with urgency, will help shape the business landscape in 2026 and beyond.
In the not-too-distant future, expect to see several trends converge:
- Multi-agent AI systems will become the backbone of complex business operations, enabling unprecedented coordination across underwriting, fraud detection, and customer service.
- Real-time monitoring capabilities will become essential infrastructure for maintaining both performance and regulatory compliance.
- Regulatory frameworks will be retooled to balance innovation and consumer protection.
Organizations will need to establish demonstrable trust in their AI tools to gain both regulatory approval and customer confidence. The most forward-thinking institutions will likely embed AI seamlessly into existing workflows, meeting their employees and customers where they already are, instead of forcing disruptive changes.
In regulated industries where trust and compliance are non-negotiable, this measured approach can enable institutions to flourish through efficiency gains, enhanced customer experiences, and increased business value.
The Rise of Multi-Agent AI Systems
Among the AI innovations that emerged in 2025, the shift toward multi-agent AI systems stands out as the one with the most potential for longevity and impact. As the technology matures in 2026, agentic systems are poised to reimagine how AI addresses complex challenges completely.
“The adoption of Multi-Agent models will likely dominate in 2026. We will see neural-compliance frameworks that provide multi-agent reasoning pathways to solve complex regulatory compliance problems,” - Vall Herard, founder and CEO of Saifr
This vision points toward compliance systems that think comprehensively.
Single models can struggle with the contextual reasoning that compliance work demands, while multi-agent systems deploy multiple specialized AI models. Each of these specialized models can bring distinct capabilities to different aspects of the problem.
For example, one AI agent may analyze transaction patterns while another interprets regulations, a third assesses risk, and another evaluates customer behavior. These separate agents communicate and synthesize findings to reach more robust conclusions than any single model could.
“AI monitoring will be a huge benefit to detecting fraud and preventing it in the next year. We’re already seeing an increased number of vendors supporting this space by providing easy-to-use tools to support efforts.” - Allison Lagosh, Head of Compliance at Saifr.
Multi-agent systems can excel in AML, KYC protocols, and fraud prevention. For suspicious transactions that require analysis of multiple factors, specialized agents examine each piece independently, then collaborate to share information and produce comprehensive assessments.
“The adoption of multi-agent integration to solve brittle manual workflows in AML, KYC, fraud, and more will continue. Multi-agent systems may improve resilience and allow for a balance of automation and human judgment, making compliance professionals’ work more effective and rewarding while simultaneously helping to improve risk management in an increasingly complex environment,” said Vall Herard, founder and CEO of Saifr.
The Real-Time Monitoring Revolution
Some of the most forward-thinking institutions are abandoning legacy compliance monitoring that periodically reviews based on rigid, rules-based systems for continuous, intelligent monitoring systems.
The focus is not on doing the same work faster, but rather on using AI to reconceptualize how institutions maintain compliance in an environment where risk is constantly evolving.
Saifr’s VP of Data Science sees a significant shift coming in the form of an “on-demand” AI model.
“One of the clearest near-term shifts is from synchronous, on-demand AI models that are invoked at the point of interaction or decision toward asynchronous, background AI leveraging precomputation, continuous enrichment, and event-driven pipelines. That shift changes AML, KYC, fraud prevention, and compliance solutions,” said Arindam Paul, VP of Data Science at Saifr.
Continuous monitoring allows institutions to more intelligently allocate investigative resources while still keeping humans in the loop. Systems have richer context to help determine actual threats, so alert volumes become more manageable. In turn, humans can focus their attention on genuinely high-risk situations instead of false positives.
Solving the AI Trust Problem
As with any burgeoning technology, there will always be some with reservations about the trustworthiness and efficacy of new tools. This is especially true in regulated industries. But there is a path forward.
“Practical explanations and reflective frameworks rather than full explainability can help reduce the ‘black-box’ nature of AI. This can lead to more trust and more adoption,” said Vall Herard, founder and CEO of Saifr.
The downward trend in AI hallucinations can also help build users’ confidence in the technology.
Arindam Paul, VP of Data Science at Saifr, identified other areas of AI that need to be addressed to build trust, noting, “Risk is mostly due to the use of generic LLMs.” Some of those risks include:
- Hallucinations
- Data leakage
- Lack of provenance and explainability
- Prompt‑injection and adversarial inputs
- Bias and fairness issues
- Operational and resilience risks
Compliance teams can mitigate these risks in three ways:
- Mapping and classifying all LLM use cases by risk.
- Educating users to prevent PII from being sent to public LLM APIs.
- Requiring human sign-off for any customer or regulatory decision influenced by an LLM.
Standardized intelligence metrics are another mitigation tactic that Herard anticipates will come to the forefront.
“Narrow benchmarks on established data sets will likely be replaced by calls for Machine Intelligence Quotient to standardize how we measure an AI model’s intelligence. This will be a composite score across many output metrics like FI score, accuracy, safety, ethical considerations, and more.” — Vall Herard, founder and CEO of Saifr.
Increased AI usage can trigger a virtuous cycle. The more people trust AI, the more they will use it, and the more it is used, the more it will be trusted.
From Checkbox Compliance to Outcome-Based Oversight
A shift in regulatory philosophy may be on the horizon in 2026.
Recently, regulators have recognized that prescriptive, process-oriented rules often fail to achieve their intended purpose. In some cases, these strict rules may even undermine compliance by directing resources toward documentation rather than genuine risk mitigation.
Saifr’s Strategic Risk Advisor, Jon Elvin, recently opined on how the US government might be open to re-thinking some regulations around AI.
“The US government is becoming increasingly open to reimagining and perhaps reducing some of the heavy regulatory, check-the-box approaches to AML and Risk Management. This is a welcome trend that has been reinforced by many senior executives within the US Treasury, DOJ, and FFIEC regulatory bodies. Focusing more on effectiveness and results of the core mission of BSA, AML, and sanctions will drive activity and program adaptability.” — Jon Elvin, Strategic Risk Advisor at Saifr.
This move toward outcome-based oversight is a sign of regulatory maturation. Forward-thinking regulators are defining expected results rather than mandating specific procedures. By giving institutions flexibility in how they achieve those outcomes, firms’ innovation is rewarded, and AI projects can move forward without needing explicit permission.
In 2026, full implementation of the EU's Anti-Money Laundering Package will establish new baseline expectations that influence compliance practices globally.
Even as regulators embrace outcome-based oversight for traditional domains, they’re establishing guardrails specifically for AI. State and Federal regulators are issuing more formalized rules in specific industries, including insurance, banking, and asset management. This formalization reflects the recognition that AI introduces distinct risks.
Because of these risks, a measured approach to AI implementation is necessary.
For example, in the era of GenAI, marketers are often using applications to generate content. For regulated industries, the AI application must have a guardrail to ensure that the content is compliant with the relevant rules and regulations in the industry.
“As new AI-specific compliance requirements emerge, there is a distinct possibility of mandatory AI transparency, stricter model governance, and consumer protection rules applied to marketing and ads.” — Arindam Paul, VP of Data Science at Saifr.
Institutions can prepare for future regulations by building AI systems with transparency and governance capabilities. Organizations that treat these features as foundational may be better positioned to adapt when formal requirements emerge.
Data Privacy and Private AI
The opportunities presented by AI in regulated industry spaces have always been tempered with tension. The most powerful models require sending sensitive data to external providers, which would often introduce privacy and regulatory risks. However, this forced tradeoff between capability and confidentiality is expected to fade in 2026.
The challenge for AI in this space has always been that models must be deployed in a private environment to prevent data leakage. Before this year, most interactions with LLMs have been through billed APIs that required the transfer of data outside organizations. But this dynamic has been changing fast, thanks in part to Small Language Models (SLMs).
LLMs, which can have up to trillions of parameters as opposed to SLMs’ millions, are becoming increasingly available on marketplaces. These larger frameworks also provide private networks for organizations, enabling them to help guard their data against leakage. These models run within an institution’s cloud environment, processing data that should not leave controlled networks, allowing institutions to leverage more powerful models while maintaining data sovereignty.
Two trends can empower compliance in high-volume but confidential data spaces:
- The increased usage of SLMs
- LLM availability in commonly used AI model and application marketplaces
"SLMs are becoming more competitive. Organizations will be able to host their own SLMs in their environment, likely cutting the cord to external APIs.” — Last Feremenga, VP of AI Applied Research at Saifr.
SLMs lack the broad knowledge of massive models because they are smaller in both scale and scope than LLMs, but they excel at specialized compliance tasks. Since they require less computational power, institutions can run them on internal infrastructure with complete data control.
With privacy concerns resolved, compliance teams can deploy AI across their full operations. The removal of privacy constraints goes beyond just making existing applications safer. It unlocks entirely new categories of compliance automation requiring access to complete, unredacted information.
The Human-in-the-Loop Imperative
Despite its advancements, AI in highly-regulated industries will never be a “set it and forget it” tool. Mitigating AI-related risk requires human signoff for decisions influenced by LLMs.
“Experimentation and adoption are expected to have broader and deeper penetration and acceptance. The balance of AI-assisted decision-making processes as a force and efficiency trend is projected into 2026 and beyond, but keeping the human in the loop will still characterize most areas. Regulatory acceptance of challenger versus incumbent models with faster adoption should occur.”— Jon Elvin, Strategic Risk Advisor at Saifr.
The practical challenge lies in determining which functions warrant significant automation versus those that require human oversight. For high-volume, low-ambiguity tasks, such as routine data processing and initial document review, AI outperforms manual processes in both speed and consistency. Human judgment is critical for decisions that require contextual understanding, ethical reasoning, and accountability that AI systems can’t provide.
The most effective approach treats AI as an amplifier of human expertise, not a replacement for it. AI can handle the analytical heavy lifting, while humans can focus on judgment, strategy, and decisions that require empathy or ethical considerations. This division of labor can improve both institutional risk management and professional satisfaction for compliance teams.
The Expanding Risk Landscape
The interconnectivity of modern business ecosystems and the debut of customer-facing AI introduce myriad opportunities in the space. However, they also bring in new risks that extend far beyond the boundaries of traditional compliance. This makes new approaches to oversight and risk management imperative in 2026.
Organizations in regulated industries are no longer standalone entities with clear boundaries, and the number of connectivity points will only multiply, amplifying the need to galvanize trust and safety within the business. Traditional vendor management approaches, designed for simpler relationships, may no longer be sufficient.
“We need stronger risk awareness and lines of sight across the entire ecosystem. It's not just money movement or delivering widgets or services; it's doing it safely and with confidence. Exposure events or bad reputation events may be amplified.” — Jon Elvin, Strategic Risk Advisor at Saifr.
AI systems can fail in ways that are both more subtle and more damaging than legacy technology. A misbehaving AI model creates regulatory liability, yes, but it also profoundly damages trust. In the age of social media, the amplification effect of such events has far-reaching reputational repercussions that could result in increased regulatory scrutiny, customer attrition, and investor concern. To put it simply, the potential brand damage and reputational risk could be catastrophic.
To help ensure success, organizations should approach AI with two key initiatives in mind. First, they should view the expanded risk landscape as a competitive differentiator, not a burden. It is also important to build trust through consistent excellence in managing the full spectrum of risk.
→ Discover how trust and safety can spur more customer engagement
The New Collaboration Model
As AI systems are increasingly integrated into operations, the traditional vendor-client dynamic in regulated industries is evolving into a more collaborative, data-centric partnership model. Data ownership, AI development, and operational workflow are clearly delineated but interdependent.
“End users, including financial institutions, will continue to push for partnerships with tech providers where systems are tested on a company’s private data before being put in production. The framework for collaboration will be established within the context of Data and AI Agents, resulting in an actionable workflow. The data (from end user client), AI Agent (from end user and vendor), and workflow (from vendor) will become the dominant paradigm.” — Vall Herard, founder and CEO of Saifr.
Herard’s three-part “dominant paradigm” embraces tailored solutions validated against actual institutional data, not just generic models. This push for testing on private data before production deployment can reduce implementation risks and validates that AI systems can perform reliably under real-world conditions before being deployed for actual operations or customer interactions. Regulators will likely continue to keep an eye out to ensure that this new model does not increase systemic risk in financial institutions.
Arindam Paul, VP of Data Science at Saifr, anticipates regulator-institution relationships will shift toward transparency, saying he expects to see “Shared sandboxes and Privacy‑Enhancing Technologies (PET)‑backed secure data‑sharing with standard APIs so regulators get near‑real‑time supervisory metrics and co‑developed playbooks.” This structure enables continuous monitoring while helping to protect sensitive data and can elevate regulators to active partners in establishing best practices rather than just enforcing compliance after the fact.
AI technology providers and institutions will have interdependencies and may work more closely together to connect and agree on priorities, while ensuring consumer protection, confidence, and compliance with various local, state, domestic, and even global AI regulations. This collaboration requires shared accountability for outcomes, with consumer protection and system stability as unifying objectives for all stakeholders.
Looking Forward: The Next Phase of AI Adoption
Agentic AI is the dominant technological shift we can expect to see in 2026. For businesses in regulated industries, the key to practical agentic AI application likely hinges on whether the industry can build the compliance infrastructure to deploy it safely and at scale.
Two interconnected forces can drive the adoption of agentic AI: neural-compliance frameworks and practical explainability mechanisms. Neural-compliance frameworks can provide the guardrails for broader agentic AI deployment by baking regulatory requirements into the systems from the start, making compliance a foundational element of AI. Additionally, as AI becomes more sophisticated, explaining how and why decisions were made can be crucial for developing trust and securing regulatory approval.
New compliance requirements will likely center on ethical innovation of AI, with emphasis on awareness and ongoing monitoring. These factors all play into the business resiliency that is critical for AI systems. In this sector, future success requires viewing compliance as the bedrock that enables sustainable and scalable deployment of AI.
A Call for Proactive Leadership
Integrating AI into regulated industries will require a fundamental reimagining of how institutions operate, compete, and create value in 2026 and beyond. Leaders framing this shift as merely an IT initiative rather than a strategic pivot may find themselves disconnected from the operational realities.
Actively engaging with frontline teams can help leaders better understand the obstacles, choke points, and other conditions on the ground that impact business objectives. Transparency and openness to new ideas, along with honest feedback, can define leadership success as AI continues to proliferate.
However, leaders can’t just listen. They should act, even in the face of regulatory uncertainty. Those who wait for clarity may be left behind. Conversely, leaders who move recklessly may face potentially catastrophic reputational and regulatory risk. The stakes in regulated industries are too high for a “move fast and break things” mentality. But there is a happy medium.
The path forward is a disciplined, patient approach that champions experimentation with guardrails and responsible innovation. Capturing the strategic advantages of AI while still building the trust and resilience necessary for success demands bold action tempered by thoughtful risk management, resulting in purposeful, accountable innovation.
The Opportunity Window
Institutions that build intelligent compliance infrastructure can now help define the next decade. Taking action sooner rather than later isn’t just a temporary advantage — the accelerated pace of AI means the gap between leaders and laggards will likely expand just as fast. The longer an organization waits to adopt AI, the more difficult it may be to catch up with competitors once the AI implementation process begins. You don’t want to be the business that’s still shopping around while others who took action sooner are already in the next phase of safely scaling their AI use across their organization.
The question has moved past the “Will AI transform compliance?” stage — we believe that it will, and it is. The question now is who will lead the charge. Businesses in regulated industries may eventually deploy AI for regulatory oversight and risk management. Will your organization shape industry standards or scramble to follow them?
A measured and thoughtful approach to AI adoption is a competitive asset, and when executed correctly, the benefits outweigh the risks. Responsible innovators who champion transparency, risk mitigation, proactive compliance, and human oversight see these factors not as constraints on innovation but as prerequisites for long-term success.
This blog discusses industry trends and capabilities that may not be available via Saifr solutions. The opinions provided are those of the author and not necessarily those of Saifr or its affiliates. This information is general and educational in nature, is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice. No warranties are made regarding the information and recipients should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of the information. Saifr does not assume any duty to update any of the information.
Saifr's products and services include tools to help users identify potential risks and leads for further investigation. Saifr is not a consumer reporting agency as defined under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and its products and services may not be used to serve as a factor in establishing an individual’s eligibility for credit, insurance, employment, benefit, tenancy, or any other permissible purpose under the FCRA. Saifr's products and services do not include and are not permitted to be used for background checks. Saifr's products and services are not intended to replace the user’s legal, compliance, business, or other functions, or to satisfy any legal or regulatory obligations. All compliance responsibilities remain solely those of the user and certain communications may require review and approval by properly licensed individuals.
© 2025 FMR LLC. All rights reserved.
1235492.1.0
