THE BENCHMARK
Credit rating agencies cannot measure what they cannot see. We built a rating system that measures AI governance in financial services.
Source: Meridian Autonomy™ dataset, N=182 rated institutions. S&P long-term issuer ratings vs governance scores. Pearson r=0.042, R²=0.002. Published in Collins (2026c), SSRN 6524438.
© 2026 Meridian Autonomy™. All rights reserved. Proprietary dataset. Reproduction prohibited.
THE PROBLEM
AI agents are making decisions, moving money, and touching regulated data, with almost no governance around them.
DORA requires operational resilience for ICT services by January 2025. The EU AI Act imposes high-risk obligations by December 2027. Every regulated financial institution deploying AI agents must demonstrate governance, auditability, and containment.
The infrastructure that measures it now exists.
WHAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOUND
95.5%
Halt Absent
of AI agents across 263 institutions have no observable halt mechanism. No emergency stop. No containment.
77.2%
Oversight Gap
of agents classified as human-in-the-loop lack the halt mechanism the classification presupposes. The label describes intention, not capability.
r = 0.042
Rating Blind Spot
S&P credit ratings show near-zero correlation with AI governance. R² = 0.002. Credit ratings cannot measure what they cannot see.
3.7×
Governance Concentration
Governance concentration exceeds vendor concentration in 82% of institutions. Governance is more concentrated than technology.
99.2%
Vendor Presence
of institutions depend on a single vendor. System-level HHI appears diversified (360). Per-institution HHI is concentrated (2,689).
$144T
Supervised Assets
Combined supervised assets of regulators mapped in the dataset. These institutions are already under examination.
THE INFRASTRUCTURE
Diagnostic
Your AI agent estate has already been scanned. Governance score, cascade exposure, regulatory chain, and containment verdicts are ready. No systems access. No questionnaires. Zero friction.
Learn more →
Intelligence Platform
263 institutions benchmarked across 14 governance dimensions. Governance drift. Vendor shifts. Peer comparison. Monthly rescans. Every month the benchmark sharpens.
Learn more →
MAR®
An independent AI governance rating. Credit ratings measure ability to repay debt. MAR® measures ability to govern AI. Different risks. Different instruments.
Explore →
WHO THIS IS FOR
CRO
You are one regulator letter away from a governance finding you cannot explain.
A quantified AI risk posture that maps every agent to a regulatory obligation, before the examiner does it for you.
CISO
Your perimeter is not where you think it is. 95.5% of AI agents have no halt mechanism.
A complete topology of every agent, every vendor dependency, every governance gap, with the halt evidence that proves containment.
COO
Your operational resilience plan does not include the fastest-growing attack surface in your institution.
Vendor concentration analysis, cascade failure mapping, and operational remediation calibrated to DORA Article 28.
CFO
The regulatory exposure in your AI estate is not on your balance sheet. It will be.
A regulatory exposure model that quantifies remediation cost, penalty probability, and the cost of inaction.
Board
The board cannot exercise oversight over systems it cannot see.
A board-ready intelligence briefing that translates AI governance posture into fiduciary risk language with comparative benchmarks.
Head of AI
Your AI programme is building faster than your governance can follow. That gap has a regulatory price.
A governance framework that scales with your AI ambitions. Not friction. Defensibility.
Your institution is already in the dataset.
Your competitors are already being benchmarked.
REQUEST A BRIEFING →