Your regulation already demands what LineBreak evidences
When the auditor asks who is the person responsible for a change an AI generated, the answer must be verifiable. Pick your framework:
United StatesSOC 2Changes must be authorized and approved prior to implementation, with evidence of who did so.United StatesSOX ITGCChanges to systems affecting financial reporting: approved, tested and documented, with segregation of duties.GuatemalaJM-98-2025Requires governance of AI systems with “human supervision over the decisions made by these systems.”Costa RicaCONASSIF 5-24Requires controls related to “the acquisition or development of the software life cycle and secure coding.”HondurasCNBS 025/2022Requires automated records identifying “the person, place, time and actions,” available to the Commission on demand.El SalvadorNRP-23 & NRP-32Requires change control “duly supported by information systems” and secure development that remediates vulnerabilities across the life cycle.
The regulations demand the same thing in different words: software life-cycle controls, changes with an identified owner, and evidence auditors can use. LineBreak answers with one flow: the AI writes the code, an identified human signs, the gate lets nothing through unsigned, and the record verifies years later.