Generative AI is transforming how financial institutions operate. From client onboarding to risk assessment, GenAI technology promises faster, smarter, and cheaper decision-making. But in regulated industries like banking and insurance, the stakes are high: one biased output or unexplained decision can undo years of building trust, and attract the attention of supervisors.
Supervisors have already started to draw their red lines. FINMA’s December 2024 AI Governance Guidance highlights explainability, independent review, and robust monitoring as minimum expectations. The EU AI Act establishes strict obligations for “high-risk” AI systems, demanding transparency, accountability, and continuous oversight. And BaFin has warned that institutions deploying opaque models without effective governance are exposing themselves to supervisory intervention.
The message is clear: bias, black boxes, and blurred accountability are not niche technical concerns. They are board-level risks.
Bias: where customer trust meets regulatory risk
When an AI system produces biased outcomes, whether in lending, claims handling, or customer interactions, the impact can be immediate and visible. In the past, reputational damage may have been considered the main consequence. Today, reputational risk often goes hand in hand with regulatory scrutiny.
Supervisors expect firms to demonstrate that their AI systems are not just effective, but also fair and explainable. Bias testing, data quality controls, and independent validation have always mattered, but with GenAI they’ve moved from best practice to regulatory expectations. Institutions that fail to detect and mitigate bias may find themselves facing not just customer outrage, but enforcement actions as well.
The black box problem
Most compliance officers are familiar with the challenge of “black boxes” in financial products, from complex derivatives to algorithmic trading. GenAI introduces a new level of opacity. Large language models and generative systems are notorious for making decisions that even their developers often struggle to fully explain or interpret.
For regulators, this is unacceptable. FINMA explicitly calls out the need for AI decisions to be explainable, reproducible, and justifiable under varying conditions. The EU AI Act demands that high-risk AI systems include documentation that enables regulators to understand not only what the system does, but how it does it.
This isn’t about technical curiosity, but about accountability. If a customer challenges an AI-driven decision, the institution must be able to show its logic. Without explainability built-in from the start, boards risk signing off on models that may fail silently in production, only to surface when customers complain or auditors arrive.
Why compliance should lead, not just monitor
In many organizations, compliance still plays a reactive role: reviewing policies, signing off on documentation, and reporting to supervisors. But with GenAI, that approach is insufficient. By the time a compliance officer reviews the documentation, the risk may already be in production.
Compliance must move upstream, from monitoring to owning the governance conversation. That means:
- Defining clear roles and responsibilities across the AI lifecycle to avoid overlaps and blind spots
- Mandating independent reviews that are both informed and objective.
- Requiring thorough bias and robustness testing as standard practice, not discretionary.
- Embedding explainability requirements into every stage of the model’s design and deployment.
- Ensuring documentation covers not only purpose and performance, but also assumptions, limitations, and fallback solutions.
When compliance leads, AI governance shifts from “tick-box” exercises to proactive risk management. Compliance becomes not the last line of defense, but the first.
Senior management accountability
Boards are increasingly expected to oversee AI strategies as part of their broader responsibility for digital transformation and risk management. Regulatory frameworks such as FINMA’s AI Governance Guidance and the EU AI Act assign accountability for high-risk systems to senior management, yet many still underestimate or simply lack awareness of the operational and reputational exposure of poorly governed models.
Board members don’t need a technical deep-dive or a data science lecture. What they need is clarity:
- Can the institution explain how its AI systems work?
- Can it prove they are fair, robust, and continuously monitored?
- Who in the organization is accountable when an AI decision is challenged?
By owning the governance framework, compliance can give boards the assurance they need, and regulators the confidence that the institution is in control.
The way forward
Bias, black boxes, and blurred responsibilities are not distant theoretical risks. They are already attracting supervisory scrutiny, damaging reputations, and raising the risk of fines and other sanctions. For financial institutions, the safest path forward is clear: compliance should own the AI governance agenda.
This doesn’t mean working in isolation. Effective AI risk management requires close partnership between compliance, QA, risk, and development teams. But it does mean compliance must set the rules of the game, ensuring that testing, explainability, and independent validation are non-negotiable.
GenAI may be moving at start-up speed, but regulatory tolerance is running out just as fast. Institutions that let compliance lead the governance conversation will not only avoid penalties, they will build the trust that regulators, customers, and markets demand.
Where QA makes the difference
Testing ensures that GenAI systems don’t just meet policies on paper, but hold up in real-world use. Sixsentix Testing of AI services ensure that your GenAI systems are not just innovative, but reliable, trustworthy and audit-ready:
- Identifying hidden risks: Structured testing uncovers bias, hallucinations, and logic flaws that traditional QA overlooks.
- Creating audit-ready evidence: Test results and documentation deliver the transparency regulators and auditors expect.
- Proving reproducibility: By rerunning critical scenarios, testing validates that GenAI outputs remain consistent, robust, and explainable.
- Validating business-critical use cases: QA goes beyond lab conditions to test real-world scenarios in BFSI and other high-stakes domains.
- Targeted risk coverage: leveraging a risk-based approach, QA can focus on areas where failures would cause the greatest business, reputational, or regulatory impact.
With compliance setting the rules and QA embedding them into day-to-day validation, institutions can demonstrate that their GenAI systems are safe, explainable, and aligned with supervisory expectations.
👉 Curious about your own GenAI risk exposure? Take our free 3-minute GenAI Risk Health Check for an instant overview of your GenAI systems’ critical risks.