Framework Implementation Maturity in Blockchain-Based Third-Party Compliance Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26087v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 17:03:07 GMT
• Title: Framework Implementation Maturity in Blockchain-Based Third-Party Compliance Assessment
• Abstract summary: We propose a blockchain-based ThirdParty Risk Assessment (TPRA) framework that operationalizes assessment, enforces multi-party governance, and preserves longitudinal assessment state using programmable smart contracts.<n>We introduce a set of evaluation metrics and a qualitative maturity model designed to assess whether compliance controls are verifiably implemented, governed, and sustained across repeated assessment cycles.
• Score: 0.1749935196721634
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Cybersecurity and privacy frameworks such as NIST SP~800--53, ISO/IEC~27001, GDPR, and HIPAA are widely used to guide organizational security posture and regulatory compliance. In practice, however, framework adoption is often assessed through point-in-time audits, self-attestations, and fragmented evidence reviews, providing limited assurance that controls are consistently implemented, independently validated, and sustained over time, particularly in environments that rely on third-party vendors. These limitations are amplified in multi-vendor ecosystems, such as healthcare remote patient monitoring (RPM), where compliance obligations span organizational boundaries and assessments are conducted by multiple independent assessors. This paper investigates how permissioned blockchain systems can support framework implementation maturity measurement rather than static compliance verification. We propose a blockchain-based Third-Party Risk Assessment (TPRA) framework that operationalizes assessment workflows, enforces multi-party governance, and preserves longitudinal assessment state using programmable smart contracts. Building on this framework, we introduce a set of evaluation metrics and a qualitative maturity model designed to assess whether compliance controls are verifiably implemented, governed, and sustained across repeated assessment cycles.

Related papers

• AspisAI: A Canonical, Machine-Interpretable Governance Framework for Automated Multi-Standard Compliance Monitoring [0.0]
  This paper presents emphAspisAI, a bounded, standard-agnostic governance framework that translates selected requirements into a canonical, machine-interpretable control model.<n>Within a bounded scope of 26 representative requirements, the framework is evaluated in a controlled simulation against five governance-oriented criteria.<n>Results include full requirement encoding, 88.5,% mapping coverage, complete traceability, and correct detection of all introduced gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-09T22:37:12Z)
• CTRAG: An In-Context Retrieval-based Framework for Automated Compliance Checking using LLMs [3.4983716329137344]
  We present CTRAG, a novel Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipeline designed for automated compliance checking.<n>CTRAG achieves highly accurate, document-informed compliance verification, even in cases of indirect compliance through third-party services.<n> Empirical evaluations demonstrate significant improvements, with CTRAG achieving an F1-score of 78% and a recall of 85% in the final deployed configuration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T16:40:16Z)
• From Holistic Evaluation to Structured Criteria: Rubrics Across the Evolving LLM Landscape [79.30826980815927]
  rubrics are explicit criteria sets that transform complex quality judgments into structured and actionable standards.<n>We systematically organize existing rubric designs, examine their construction and optimization, and analyze their role across evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-07T13:34:55Z)
• Referential Security as a New Paradigm for AI Evaluations [5.748110232428846]
  We propose referential security as a new paradigm for AI evaluation.<n>This approach reframes model identity as an empirically verifiable property and separates referential stability from the substantive security claims it conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-25T10:24:10Z)
• Who judges the judges? Governance from metrics: a runtime framework for continuous LLM compliance monitoring [0.0]
  Current approaches to AI compliance treat conformity as a binary, audit-time verdict.<n>We argue that this compliance fiction is structurally ill-suited to the requirements of the EU AI Act.<n>We introduce governance from metrics, a principle whereby regulatory compliance is derived as a continuous signal from behavioural observability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T21:21:33Z)
• Towards trustworthy agentic AI: a comprehensive survey of safety, robustness, privacy, and system security [57.35851886874902]
  Agentic AI systems execute complex tasks autonomously, but their multi-step trajectories introduce new failure modes that challenge trustworthiness.<n>This survey provides a focused examination of trustworthy agentic AI through two core dimensions that are critical for high-risk deployments.<n>For each dimension, we clarify key concepts, identify where risks emerge along the agent workflow, and summarize stage-targeted mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T10:26:37Z)
• COMPASS: The explainable agentic framework for Sovereignty, Sustainability, Compliance, and Ethics [0.0]
  This paper introduces a novel multi-agent orchestration system designed to enforce value-aligned AI.<n>The framework comprises an Orchestrator and four specialised sub-agents addressing sovereignty, carbon-aware computing, compliance, and ethics.<n>By employing an LLM-as-a-judge methodology, the system assigns quantitative scores and generates explainable justifications for each assessment dimension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T20:14:35Z)
• Compliance as a Trust Metric [1.0264137858888513]
  This paper bridges this research gap by operationalizing regulatory compliance as a quantitative and dynamic trust metric.<n>Our contribution is a quantitative model that assesses the severity of each violation along multiple dimensions, including its Volume, Duration, Breadth, and Criticality.<n>We evaluate ACE on a synthetic hospital dataset, demonstrating its ability to accurately detect a range of complex HIPAA and HIPAA violations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-03T21:14:40Z)
• Robust Verification of Controllers under State Uncertainty via Hamilton-Jacobi Reachability Analysis [49.31947916567367]
  Hamilton-Jacobi (J) reachability analysis is a popular formal verification tool for general nonlinear systems that can compute optimal reachable under worst-case uncertainties.<n>This work is the first HJ-based reachability-based system verification framework for the Robust Verification Controllers via HJ rover.<n>Within Ro-CoRe, we propose novel methods for safety verification and controller design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-18T18:55:20Z)
• CCE: Confidence-Consistency Evaluation for Time Series Anomaly Detection [56.302586730134806]
  We introduce Confidence-Consistency Evaluation (CCE), a novel evaluation metric.<n>CCE simultaneously measures prediction confidence and uncertainty consistency.<n>We also establish RankEval, a benchmark for comparing the ranking capabilities of various metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-01T03:38:38Z)
• Bridging the Mobile Trust Gap: A Zero Trust Framework for Consumer-Facing Applications [51.56484100374058]
  This paper proposes an extended Zero Trust model designed for mobile applications operating in untrusted, user-controlled environments.<n>Using a design science methodology, the study introduced a six-pillar framework that supports runtime enforcement of trust.<n>The proposed model offers a practical and standards-aligned approach to securing mobile applications beyond pre-deployment controls.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-20T18:42:36Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.