Solutions — instrument
The UK has principles and regulators, not a statute.
The pro-innovation approach delegates AI to existing regulators — the FCA, the ICO, the MHRA — rather than creating a cross-cutting statute. So there is no instrument to map, and the binding obligations come from the sector regulator you already answer to.
What binds instead
- UK GDPR and the DPA 2018
- Binding today, and close enough to the EU clause map that the same evidence answers most of it — with the divergences worth reading rather than assumed away.
- FCA and PRA expectations
- The Senior Managers and Certification Regime already demands that a named individual is accountable for a function. An agent acting under authority nobody signed for is a problem under SM&CR before it is a problem under any AI rule.
- The five principles
- Safety, transparency, fairness, accountability and contestability. The last two are what a governance record is for — and contestability in particular needs the causal chain behind one decision, not a summary.
One thing the paragraph above should not be allowed to smuggle past you. There being no AI statute is a fact about the UK; there being no UK market profile in the platform is a fact about us. A deployment picks from EU, US, Singapore and Australia, so a UK institution today selects the EU profile and reads the divergences off itself. "Close enough that the same evidence answers most of it" is true and is not the same as mapped — UK GDPR and the DPA 2018 are a distinct instrument with distinct divergences, and enumerating them is work we owe rather than work the framework's shape excuses.
RotaGrant ships no clause map for the UK framework. The engine takes clause maps as data, so one can be authored — by you, by your counsel, or with us — and it will be scored like any other. What this page will not do is imply a mapping that does not exist, because a readiness percentage against an instrument nobody encoded is a number with no denominator.