European and Japanese financial authorities have placed artificial intelligence and cyber resilience in the same supervisory conversation. A joint statement from their annual regulatory forum says participants discussed AI use in financial services, crypto-assets, stablecoins, tokenisation and growing cyber threats, including the way frontier AI is changing risks facing the sector.

The meeting brought together the European Commission, Japan’s Financial Services Agency and senior officials from European banking, securities, insurance and resolution bodies. They highlighted responsible innovation that keeps financial AI safe and transparent while supporting market stability, and called for continued cooperation through the G7, G20 and Financial Stability Board.

The statement does not create new rules or impose a timetable. Its significance lies in the framing. AI governance is no longer presented as a separate model-risk exercise: it sits alongside operational resilience, digital-finance supervision and economic security. Firms operating across jurisdictions should expect questions about agent access, third-party concentration, incident response and evidence of control to converge.

The forum also noted a reassessment of expectations around AI as a possible financial-stability issue. That is a useful counterweight to purely adoption-led narratives, but the statement stops short of specifying what data supervisors will request or how approaches will be aligned in practice.

Execution Level Governance- What audit-ready agent governance actually looks like
David Girvin, founder and CEO of Assury argues that model-in-the-loop review, AI governing AI, is fundamentally unreliable for regulated environments: even the best-performing models miss a meaningful share of violations, the reviewing model is typically provided by the same vendor being reviewed, and prompt injection or context poisoning can compromise both the acting agent and its supposed overseer simultaneously. He makes the case for deterministic, architecturally enforced controls instead, walking through Assury's approach of autonomy zones, session risk accumulation, and credential starvation, which lets a compromised agent be cut off from its tools instantly rather than relying on time-boxed access. The conversation touches on why David is sceptical of just-in-time credentialing as a solution for agent security more broadly, since agent sessions don't run on predictable human timescales, along with the current gap between how identity and security vendors are pitching agent protection and what he sees happening at the execution layer in practice. He also discusses the compliance and audit implications of probabilistic decision-making, arguing that regulated industries will increasingly need tamper-evident, hash-chained audit trails that can withstand scrutiny from auditors and regulators who are only beginning to understand agentic risk, and reflects on a named frontier lab's own published framework as an example of the gap between research and practitioner reality. Elsewhere, David reflects candidly on building a bootstrapped security company in an increasingly crowded market, why he turned down aggressive VC funding to stay in control of the product, and what a credible third-party assessment of his own gateway would need to look like given that Assury sits directly in the execution path for every customer's agents.
BrightTALK

Share this post
The link has been copied!