Ralyio for Financial Services

What regulators actually ask for

"Show us the data flow for MNP data from Bloomberg to your risk engine at the time of this incident." A stale Confluence page cannot answer this. The inability to answer accurately is itself a finding.

Regulators have become progressively more specific. FCA, PRA, DORA, SR 11-7, and GDPR Art. 30 all require some version of: field-level data mapping, point-in-time reconstruction, and evidence of control coverage. Static documentation fails all three.

SR 11-7 / SS1/23

Model risk governance — full audit trail per change, point-in-time reconstruction

DORA

ICT dependency mapping with precision for resilience testing

GDPR Art. 30

Records of processing — field-level data mapping obligations

FCA / PRA

Operational resilience — data flow mapping at the implementation level

MiFID II

Transaction reporting — complete and accurate at time of execution

Basel III

Technology risk governance — control coverage evidence for risk committees

Built for regulated environments

Every capability is a natural consequence of how the living model operates — not a compliance bolt-on.

Point-in-time reconstruction

Every asset is append-only. Reconstruct exactly what any interaction looked like at any past date — including who approved it and what the field mappings were.

Field-level data lineage

Every field carries sensitivity classification, applicable regulations, and the interactions that carry it. Query: 'which flows touch Restricted data without an encryption control?'

Maker-checker approval gates

Segregation of duties enforced at lifecycle gates. The proposer cannot approve. LIVE transitions require dual sign-off. All timestamps recorded.

Control mapping

High-risk interactions must carry at least one control. Absence is a live integrity finding — not something discovered in an audit.

Continuous integrity score

A machine-readable measure of your technology control posture, computed continuously. Reportable to risk committees. Comparable across domains and over time.

Examination mode

Point-in-time export: the full architecture and audit history, packaged for regulatory submission. No manual collation.

Frequently asked questions

How does Ralyio support DORA compliance?

DORA requires EU financial entities to map ICT dependencies with enough precision for resilience testing. Ralyio's metamodel maps directly: systems are ICT assets, interactions are ICT dependencies, and the lifecycle gives you operational status at any point in time. The dependency graph traversal shows the full impact scope of any node failure.

Can Ralyio produce point-in-time data flow reconstructions?

Yes — this is a first-class capability. Every asset is append-only: editing creates a new version, never overwriting. You can reconstruct exactly what any interaction looked like at any past date, including who approved it and what the field mappings were. This is what examiners ask for and static documentation cannot provide.

How does Ralyio handle segregation of duties?

Maker-checker is enforced at the lifecycle gate level. The person who raises a change request cannot be the person who approves it. DESIGNED→BASELINED requires a reviewer who is not the proposer. CHANGE_IN_PROGRESS→LIVE requires dual sign-off. All approvals are timestamped and auditable.

Does Ralyio track data sensitivity at the field level?

Yes. Every field carries a sensitivity classification (e.g. Restricted, Confidential, PII, MNP). You can query 'which interactions carry Restricted data without an encryption control?' and get an immediate, current answer. The compliance matrix becomes a computed artifact, not a maintained spreadsheet.

Examination-ready integration documentation.