Industry Trends

Why General-Purpose AI (Even Custom-Built) Falls Short for Compliance

Want to share this?

AI tools like ChatGPT and custom-built chatbots trained with in-house SMEs are powerful. Many now advertise features like clause-level logic, traceability, and jurisdictional awareness. On the surface, that sounds close to what a compliance assistant might deliver.

But here’s the catch: AI compliance isn’t just about generating the “right” answer; it’s about proving it, documenting it, and standing behind it when regulators ask why. True compliance risk management requires an infrastructure that general-purpose or custom GPTs simply don’t provide.

The issue is simple: plausible ≠ provable.

In a compliance assessment, an answer that looks correct still fails if it can’t be supported by evidence, documentation, and repeatability, all of which are essential parts of a mature compliance risk framework.

Where Custom GPTs Still Fall Short

Even if a custom-built model includes compliance-like features, it rarely delivers the full package needed for defensibility and AI privacy compliance.

1. No Embedded Legal Oversight

Compliance requires not just AI-generated reasoning, but expert legal review. A chatbot can generate plausible outputs, but only a legal team can validate where requirements originate, ensure interpretations are accurate, and confirm nothing is lost in translation.

Without that oversight, organizations risk misinterpretations or hallucinations that could increase compliance risk rather than reduce it.

AI tools designed for compliance must provide clear, cited, and defensible sources, a feature that a general-purpose model cannot guarantee.

2. No Audit-Ready Documentation

Regulators don’t just want the output; they demand audit-ready documentation, logs, decision histories, and a clear system of record. Custom GPTs often fail to meet compliance risk monitoring standards because they don’t capture this metadata.

Without built-in audit trails, organizations face significant gaps in Compliance Gap Analysis, making it challenging to demonstrate consistent adherence to regulatory standards.

3. No Historical Tracking

In compliance, the ability to revisit past assessments is as critical as producing new ones. Most GPT-based tools lack version control or reassessment workflows, weakening compliance assessment and review processes.

An effective compliance risk framework should support longitudinal tracking and change management to ensure historical defensibility.

4. No Enterprise-Grade Data Controls

Even “enterprise” GPT offerings may lack sufficient AI privacy protections. Without guaranteed data isolation, using such tools risks exposing sensitive data and could violate privacy regulations, such as GDPR or CCPA.

AI privacy demands strict controls, encryption, access restrictions, and assurances of data residency, which general-purpose models often overlook.

5. Inconsistent Reproducibility

Generative AI outputs are predictive, not deterministic. That means the same prompt can yield different answers over time, a fundamental flaw for AI compliance workflows that demand consistency.

Regulators expect reproducibility: the same question should always return the same defensible result. As general-purpose AI models evolve with new data, they introduce model drift, incorporating unverified sources and thereby undermining compliance risk monitoring.

A Real-World Scenario

Imagine your compliance team uses a custom chatbot to map new regulations to your internal controls. The chatbot produces a response with citations and reasoning. But:

There’s no legal counsel review.
The rationale isn’t logged in an audit-ready format.
You can’t retrieve how this regulation was assessed last quarter.

When a regulator asks for your evidence, you have only the bot’s unverified output. Instead of reducing liability, you’ve introduced new AI compliance risks and documentation gaps.

FAQs: What People Ask Most

Q: Our custom GPT has clause-level logic and traceability. Isn’t that enough?

Not quite. Without a formal compliance risk framework, traceability is only superficial. Compliance requires a system of record, version history, and legal oversight, all of which are critical for a Compliance Gap Analysis.

Q: What about building in-house with SME training?

It helps, but SMEs alone can’t replace legally defensible, repeatable processes. Without enterprise-grade documentation and audit readiness, even SME-trained models often fail to meet AI compliance standards.

Q: Can AI still be used safely for compliance?

Yes — when it’s purpose-built with compliance infrastructure that includes:

Legal oversight and defensibility
Audit-ready documentation
Historical assessment tracking
Enterprise-grade data controls for AI privacy

Key Takeaway

Custom GPTs may offer advanced logic and jurisdictional awareness, but they stop short of what regulators actually require:

Legal oversight and defensibility
Audit-ready, traceable documentation
Historical tracking
AI privacy and data control

In compliance, the difference between “sounds right” and “stands up under scrutiny” is everything. Purpose-built AI compliance solutions designed around compliance risk frameworks, Compliance Gap Analysis, and compliance risk monitoring deliver the infrastructure and defensibility that general-purpose AI cannot.