WHAT IT IS NOTNot the decision
Validation evidence can inform authorization and assessment work. Designated people still make those calls.
SOLUTIONS
Start with the decision your program must support.
ATO and CMMC are different jobs. ComplAI keeps those differences clear, and still lets you reuse facts you have already verified.
Federal systems · Defense Industrial Base · connected assurance
PROGRAM PATHS
Two primary workflows, routed clearly.
ATO teams authorize systems. CMMC assessors evaluate implementation against a defined boundary. Each page explains the job without mixing those roles.
FEDERAL SYSTEMSATO & continuous ATO
Keep the authorization basis tied to the boundary, evidence, SSP, POA&M, and who reviews it.
Explore ATO workflowsDEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASECMMC Level 2
Connect the CUI boundary and NIST SP 800-171 requirements to implementation, evidence, and the work that follows.
Explore CMMC workflowsPRODUCT LAYER
Prove the controls, then keep the record.
Javelin Security Validation tests whether controls work inside the boundary you approve. The proof can sit next to the ATO or CMMC record. It does not authorize a system or replace an assessor.
MULTI-FRAMEWORK ASSURANCE
Reuse verified facts without flattening the requirements.
A control or evidence item can inform more than one program. Each requirement still keeps its own source, meaning, and review state.
- 01
Map one fact to every relevant requirement in scope.
- 02
Keep each framework’s language, owners, and evidence expectations.
- 03
Show gaps and conflicts instead of hiding them behind one score.
- 04
Confirm catalog versions and mapping depth during scoping.
PROGRAMS · CAPABILITIES · INDUSTRIES
One connected system, wherever the requirement comes from.
AI-native automation with human-accountable review, across the programs, capabilities, and regulated industries below. Catalog availability, mapping depth, and connectors are confirmed for each deployment.
PROGRAMSAuthorization & certification paths
ATO & continuous ATO · FISMA & NIST RMF · CMMC Level 2 · FedRAMP 20x · EU AI Act · NIST AI RMF · NIS2 · DORA — with the full catalog portfolio behind them.
See the framework catalogCAPABILITIESDefensive and offensive assurance
Continuous monitoring · GRC assurance record · DSPM & CUI discovery · ITSM remediation · agentic workflows with human review · Javelin attack-path validation · sovereign, cloud, and gov-cloud deployment.
Explore the platform
INDUSTRIESBuilt for regulated operations
Defense Industrial Base · federal & public sector · healthcare · financial services · EU-regulated operations · commercial SaaS. Requirements differ; the record model does not.
Discuss your environmentDELIVERY MODEL
Give every contributor a clear role.
Customers, advisors, service teams, partners, assessors, and authorities do different work. ComplAI gives them a shared record. Each party keeps its own job.
CUSTOMEROwn the program and decisions
You set scope, assign work, accept risk, and own the authorization or assessment process.
DELIVERYContribute within a defined scope
Advisors and service teams help implement, operate, and gather evidence. They are not the assessor or the authority.
INDEPENDENT REVIEWKeep assessment and authorization independent
Assessors and designated officials make the calls assigned to them. The platform does not.
COMMON QUESTIONS
Asked before scoping.
Short answers that stay true whatever your boundary looks like.
Is ATO the same workflow as CMMC?
No. ATO teams authorize systems; CMMC assessors evaluate implementation against a defined boundary. ComplAI keeps the workflows distinct and lets both reuse verified facts.
Does Javelin authorize a system?
No. Javelin validation evidence can sit next to the ATO or CMMC record, but designated people still make authorization and assessment decisions.
Can one evidence item support more than one framework?
Yes. A verified fact can map to every relevant requirement while each framework keeps its own language, owners, and review state.
NEXT DECISION
Choose the workflow, then define the boundary.
We’ll start with the program, who is responsible, and what has to be proven next.