Public research
Find a starting point for your work: employment decisions, board oversight, a regulatory change or a governance framework. Each reference links its sources and states its review date.
Free reference · September 2026 edition
Twenty connected chapters on AI regulation, oversight, privacy, technical safety and practical implementation. Read online or download the complete edition—no account required.
Read the handbook →Start with the Illinois playbook, then follow the supplier and workplace-policy questions.
Illinois HB 3773 took effect January 1, 2026. It addresses discriminatory effects from covered employer AI use, ZIP codes as proxies for protected classes, and notice. This reference separates the statute from withdrawn procedural proposals and suggests a practical documentation workflow.
Read the reference: Illinois HB 3773: An Employer Documentation Reference →A practical sequence for an Illinois HR team to inventory employment AI, request supplier evidence, coordinate notices and track decisions. Suggested work practices are distinguished from enacted requirements and withdrawn IDHR proposals.
Read the reference: Illinois Employment AI: A Working Playbook for HR Teams →A practical guide to documenting AI used through recruiters, staffing firms and other employment suppliers. It distinguishes the enacted Illinois AI provision from fact-specific questions about agency, contractual responsibility and the records needed to understand the decision chain.
Read the reference: AI Used by Recruiting Agencies: An Illinois Employer Diligence Reference →Understand the AI used through recruiters, staffing firms and employment suppliers. This briefing introduces the service-chain questions behind the TalentSight vendor questionnaire and response tracker.
Read the reference: AI Used by Recruiting Agencies: A TalentSight Briefing →Automated screening should be reviewed as part of the actual employment decision process. This reference distinguishes allegations, agency arguments and final findings, and shows how employers can document tool use without assuming that a vendor contract settles responsibility.
Read the reference: AI Hiring Discrimination: Questions Employers Should Resolve →A practical method for writing an AI use policy that people can follow. Distinguish organizational choices from legal requirements, connect the policy to approved tools and decisions, and establish how exceptions and changes are reviewed.
Read the reference: Workplace AI Use Policies: From Written Rules to Operating Decisions →An argument for documenting current AI use before the next consequential change. The case rests on work an organization can do now, without turning a laboratory forecast into a legal deadline or predicting an inevitable dispute.
Read the reference: The Window: Build the Employment AI Record While You Can Use It →Connect oversight, evidence and AI statements to the board’s next decision.
AI oversight should be tied to the organization’s material risks and actual governance responsibilities. This reference separates the Delaware oversight doctrine from Techné AI’s practical recommendations and from policy-specific insurance questions.
Read the reference: AI Risk and D&O Liability: A Practical Reference for Directors →What Delaware’s oversight cases ask about board reporting, and how to use those questions when AI creates a material compliance risk. A focused reading of Marchand, followed by a practical reporting and follow-up workflow.
Read the reference: Caremark and AI Oversight: Doctrine, Judgment and the Board Record →A practical preparation guide for boards, finance and risk teams discussing AI with their insurance broker. The questions are Techné AI’s suggested preparation framework; they are not represented as a standard questionnaire used by every carrier.
Read the reference: Preparing for D&O Renewal: AI Governance Questions and Evidence →A bounded reference to AI-related securities filing data and selected SEC proceedings. Filing counts describe allegations, not proven misconduct. Each example links to its source and is distinguished from a current docket-status review.
Read the reference: AI Securities Litigation: Verified Filing Counts and Selected Enforcement Examples →A briefing on organizing board oversight of significant AI risks, maintaining an accurate record and preparing policy-specific insurance questions. Read the current public reference and explore the editable BoardSight working documents.
Read the reference: AI Governance and D&O Liability: A Board Briefing →Check the relevant jurisdiction, the provision’s status and its actual scope.
HB 3773 is in force. IDHR’s May 15, 2026 proposed notice provisions were formally withdrawn in the June 26 Illinois Register. This tracker distinguishes enacted duties, proposals and the work an employer can prepare while monitoring official updates.
Read the reference: IDHR AI Notice Rulemaking: Current Status and Source Record →Build a shared factual record, then map each jurisdiction’s requirements to the actual role and activity. This method avoids treating every AI law as applicable to every tool or assuming one framework supplies all required evidence.
Read the reference: A Working Method for Multi-Jurisdiction AI Governance →The EU AI Act’s application depends on the activity, territorial scope and organization’s role. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 is enacted and in force; it changes substantive provisions as well as high-risk timelines. This reference explains how to organize a scoped review.
Read the reference: EU AI Act for US Boards: Roles, Dates and a Working Record →New York’s RAISE Act takes effect January 1, 2027. This reference distinguishes frontier developers from large frontier developers, explains the current transparency and incident-reporting provisions, and provides a preparation workflow grounded in the amended General Business Law.
Read the reference: The New York RAISE Act: Coverage and Preparation for January 2027 →A dated selection of federal AI policy and NIST milestones. Executive direction, voluntary guidance and enforceable obligations have different statuses. This page records selected verified events rather than claiming complete, continuous coverage of every federal action.
Read the reference: Federal AI Governance: Selected Primary-Source Milestones →The Illinois Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act took effect August 1, 2025. Review the actual clinical function, permitted support use and applicable conditions. A licensed professional’s involvement does not authorize every AI use.
Read the reference: Illinois WOPR Act: Reviewing AI in Behavioral Health Workflows →Understand the different roles of NIST guidance, ISO risk guidance and management-system requirements.
The NIST AI Risk Management Framework is voluntary guidance for managing AI risks. Its Govern, Map, Measure and Manage functions can organize a program, but applying the framework is not a certification or a determination of compliance with every applicable law.
Read the reference: NIST AI RMF: A Practical Reference for Governance Teams →ISO/IEC 23894:2023 offers guidance for managing AI risks. Use it to connect a specific system, its context, evaluation evidence and risk decisions. This reference includes a worked example and distinguishes the guidance from ISO/IEC 42001’s management-system requirements.
Read the reference: ISO/IEC 23894: Applying AI Risk Management Guidance →ISO/IEC 42001:2023 sets out requirements for an AI management system. Its official scope concerns establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving that system. It should not be represented as an automatic finding that every product or deployment complies with every AI law.
Read the reference: ISO/IEC 42001: Scoping an AI Management System →Explore the contents and available formats in each private library before choosing the one that fits your responsibilities.