Ontological Knowledge Blocks: Executable Compliance and Profile-Based Validation for Trustworthy AI Systems

Pre-deployment verification of enterprise artificial intelligence (AI) agents remains a critical gap between large language model (LLM) capability benchmarking and production deployment. Post-deployment monitoring, human-in-the-loop controls, and prompt-level guardrails offer limited assurance once an agent is operating in production. We present an ontology-grounded verification framework -- to our knowledge the first to combine three components: an Agent Operational Envelope formalizing the certification space across permissions, domain constraints, safety properties, governance rules, and autonomy levels; an ontology-to-scenario generation pipeline that derives regulatory, operational, and adversarial test scenarios automatically; and a machine-verifiable Trust Certificate with graduated deployment verdicts. A controlled pilot across four regulated industries (Fintech, Banking, Insurance, Healthcare), instantiated as five industry-by-regulatory-regime cells across the United States and Vietnam (where Vietnam's 2025 AI Law makes such verification legally mandated for financial services), generated 1,800 scenarios evaluated against 125 primary-source regulatory requirements and 25 injected faults. Ontology-grounded generation significantly outperformed the dominant persona-based baseline on regulatory coverage (48.3% versus 33.1%; corrected p_c = .0006) and attained the highest domain specificity (4.77/5.0; p = 2e-6); transparently, its advantage over plain and retrieval-augmented prompting did not survive Bonferroni correction. Cross-validation across three LLM families (Claude Sonnet 4, Qwen 2.5 72B, Gemma 4 26B; 5,400 total scenarios) replicated the persona-versus-ontology pattern. The framework offers a reproducible, regulation-grounded route to pre-deployment assurance for enterprise AI agents, complementing runtime governance with an auditable deployment gate.

AI-generated RTL verification plans can satisfy a provider schema yet fail at the boundary to trusted execution. We present SecTB-RTL, an auditable framework covering 31 tasks and 124 authored hardware-security regressions. A deterministic non-AI baseline killed 36, 75, and 78 mutants at increasing resource limits. The first confirmatory run (C1-R2) failed before model execution because the provider rejected its response schema. After a schema-only repair made without viewing outcomes, a separately frozen follow-up run (C1-R3) completed 1,860 calls. The provider accepted 1,857 responses, but only nine passed the production semantic validator. The generation and execution rules did not match. We therefore preserve the run as an instrument-validation incident and report no prompt-effect estimate. This incident shows that provider or schema acceptance does not establish execution validity. Compilation and coverage are only diagnostics; the exact saved artifact must pass the full production path. A subsequent follow-up is excluded because it did not satisfy the preregistered evidence-completeness gate and is treated only as future work. We release the benchmark, failure-preserving contract, incident provenance, and governance controls needed to prevent infrastructure behavior from being misreported as model behavior.

The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) imposes technical obligations on high-risk AI providers, yet Articles 8-15 were drafted for predictive AI and leave seven technical gaps when applied to generative systems, spanning non-deterministic data governance, training-data provenance, continuous conformity, human oversight, open-ended robustness, emergent risk, and generative fairness. We deliver Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework of 43 machine-checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules that run in a CI/CD pipeline and emit Article-indexed audit evidence, and we show the actual Rego policy code rather than merely describing it. Our central commitment is that the Act's open-textured standards ("appropriate levels," "possible biases") become declared, auditable numbers: robustness thresholds are derived from the provider's documented baseline and a state-of-the-art floor, and framing bias is collapsed into eight measurable proxies tested by counterfactual demographic probing. We also correct who owes what, since under Article 25 and Chapter V a downstream deployer relies on the upstream provider's Article 53 training-data summary and documents only the layers it controls, so GaC verifies that summary rather than demanding per-sample documentation the deployer never had. We validate on two enterprise deployments, a high-risk advisory chatbot and a limited-risk content generator, benchmarking against a manual expert audit rather than documentation artifacts that were never designed to enforce compliance. GaC reproduces all of the manual audit's findings, including three penalty-triggering violations, while cutting audit labor by roughly 75%.