RegMatcher: map obligations to controls and evidence.
Test every obligation against policies and controls, explain the coverage decision and govern remediation.
RegMatcher connects regulatory obligations to internal policies, controls, owners and evidence. It gives compliance teams a requirement-by-requirement view of coverage, explains why a mapping was suggested and creates a governed path from identified gap to approved remediation.
What RegMatcher is for
Keyword searches miss controls that use different language, while spreadsheets flatten the relationships between requirement, policy, control and evidence. RegMatcher provides a structured mapping layer so reviewers can test coverage without losing the source trail.
Core workflow
1. Import confirmed obligations and internal documents
Bring in source-linked obligations from RegReview alongside the policies, standards, procedures and control descriptions used by the organization.
2. Generate candidate mappings
Semantic matching proposes relevant internal passages even when terminology differs. Each suggestion retains the regulatory source and internal document reference for review.
3. Score and explain coverage
Reviewers classify coverage using an agreed scale—for example full, partial, not covered or not applicable—and record the rationale. The score is a decision aid, not an automatic compliance determination.
4. Draft remediation for confirmed gaps
For partial or uncovered requirements, teams can develop proposed control language, actions, owners and due dates. Drafts remain subject to legal, compliance and control-owner approval.
5. Link evidence and preserve approval
Connect test results, procedures, meeting records or other evidence to the approved control. Maintain the review history needed to explain what changed and why.
Outputs your team can use
- A requirement-to-policy and requirement-to-control matrix.
- Coverage scores with rationale and reviewer status.
- An owned remediation backlog for confirmed gaps.
- Source-linked draft controls for expert review.
- An evidence trail that can support audit and supervisory review.
Users, inputs and outputs
| Dimension | RegMatcher implementation scope |
|---|---|
| Primary users | Compliance, legal, risk, policy, control, audit and remediation owners |
| Inputs | Confirmed source-linked obligations, controlled policies and procedures, control descriptions, owner taxonomy, scoring rules and evidence references |
| Outputs | Candidate mappings, reviewer decisions, coverage rationale, gaps, remediation actions, draft language and evidence links |
| System boundary | The implementation defines whether RegMatcher or a downstream GRC owns controls, actions, testing and evidence |
Integration and evidence design
RegMatcher should fit the organisation’s system-of-record architecture. APIs, structured files or governed exports can be evaluated for the actual GRC, document repository and evidence environment. No universal certified connector list is claimed on this page.
- Keep the originating regulatory paragraph visible beside each candidate mapping.
- Identify the exact policy or control passage, not only the document title.
- Retain machine suggestion, human decision, rationale, reviewer and timestamp.
- Separate control design from operating evidence and test results.
- Export gaps and actions with stable requirement and control identifiers.
Public product view
Review remains human
RegMatcher accelerates comparison and drafting, but it does not decide whether the organization is compliant. Control owners, legal counsel and qualified compliance reviewers confirm the mapping, sufficiency and final wording.
RegMatcher and RegReview
RegReview creates the controlled regulatory intake and obligations library. RegMatcher applies those obligations to the organization’s operating model. Together they connect a source change to its impacted policy, control, owner, evidence and remediation.
Frequently asked questions
Does RegMatcher replace a GRC platform?
It can complement an existing GRC environment by adding source-linked regulatory interpretation and semantic mapping. The implementation should define which system owns actions, controls and evidence.
Can it map controls when wording differs?
It is designed to identify semantically related passages, but suggested mappings must be reviewed and approved by qualified users.
Does it generate final policy language?
It can assist with a draft for confirmed gaps. Final policy and control language remains subject to the organization’s governance and approval process.
Product boundaries
Integration methods, supported document formats and workflow configuration depend on the implementation scope. Confirm these details during discovery and validate them in a pilot.