- Documentation
- /
- Lor
- /
- Application Overview
Application Overview
What this app is for
The Legal Obligation Register converts legal and regulatory sources into governed operational obligations and then proves they are met. It answers, for any obligation, the questions an auditor or regulator asks: what law requires this, who owns it, how often is it due, what control manages it, what evidence proves it, who verified the control works, and what happened when it didn't?
It is the register at the centre of a compliance-management system — deliberately domain-agnostic (environmental, safety, financial, licensing) — and keeps itself current as sources change and obligations are reviewed.
The operating chain
SOURCE OBLIGE CONTROL & PROVE ASSURE & REMEDIATE
instruments + provisions -> obligations + controls + evidence -> verification +
+ business units applicability + requirements + assessments ->
occurrences evidence items exceptions -> actions
|
reviews · instrument changes · comms
Read left to right, that is the sidebar: Instruments & Sources → Obligations → Controls & Evidence → Verification & Assurance → Exceptions & Actions.
The five functional areas
1. Instruments & Sources — where the obligation comes from
LegalInstrument (the source — type, jurisdiction, authority, status, review
cycle), InstrumentProvision (the specific clause/section), InstrumentChange
(a detected amendment with impact assessment) and BusinessUnit (the org
structure that owns obligations and controls).
2. Obligations — the governed requirement
LegalObligation (typed, risk-rated, owned, with frequency and due rule),
ObligationApplicability (which entities/sites it applies to and why),
ObligationOccurrence (each dated instance of a recurring obligation) and
ObligationReview (the periodic review that keeps interpretation current).
3. Controls & Evidence — how it is managed and proven
Control (preventive/detective/corrective/directive, key-control flag),
ObligationControl (the mapping), EvidenceRequirement (what must be kept, with
retention) and EvidenceItem (the actual records, with hash and acceptance).
4. Verification & Assurance — is it working
VerificationPlan and Verification (independent tests of control
effectiveness) and ComplianceAssessment (the recorded assurance status —
compliant / at-risk / non-compliant).
5. Exceptions & Actions — when it fails
Exception (a breach or control failure, with regulator-notification flag),
CorrectiveAction (the remediation, tracked to verification) and Communication
(related correspondence).
Two ideas that make it trustworthy
- Every obligation is traceable to its source and provable by evidence. From a
LegalObligationyou can reach the instrument/provision that created it, the controls that manage it, the evidence that proves each occurrence, and the verification that confirms the control works. - Assurance is explicit and challenged.
ComplianceAssessmentrecords a status with a stated basis,Verificationindependently tests the control, and any gap becomes anExceptionwith owned corrective actions — so "we comply" is always backed by something.
Build status
Phase 1 (this build): the full schema (18 models), navigation, dashboards and a coherent seeded demo are complete and browsable as AI-Safe CRUD.
Phase 2 (documented, not built): the compliance engine — the dashboard
metrics/sections, due-date and frequency computation, assurance rollups by
business unit, overdue/verification-due detection, and rules.yaml /
workflows.yaml. Today those outcomes are modelled statically in the seed.