Industries · Federal · Record Substrate
Your AI agents are acting inside an authorization boundary an auditor will ask you to account for.
Federal agencies are moving agentic systems into production inside their authorization boundaries. FISMA and NIST 800-53 expect an attributable record of that action. Built by a veteran-led team, the substrate produces it, inside your own boundary, designed to run air-gapped. Until the model runs inside your boundary, the model path leaves it: that path is not air-gapped and is not for controlled or classified information.
§ 01 Why now
Can you account for what your agents did inside the boundary?
2026 to 2027
Enforcement. The auditor asks.
The NIST 800-53 audit and accountability controls expect a complete, reviewable trail, and agent-specific control overlays for 800-53 are in development. The obligation to account for what an agent did inside the boundary arrives before the overlay that names it.
The audit question
If an agency inspector general asked you to reconstruct every action your agents took inside your authorization boundary last quarter, what would you show them?
§ 02 Use cases
Where the substrate lands first.
Mission work inside the boundary
Agents that draft, review, and reconcile against federal systems of record, with access attributed and reviewable.
In-perimeter and disconnected operation
Coordination, policy, and the record run inside your authorization boundary. The substrate is designed to run air-gapped: once installed, the substrate needs no route out, so it fits environments that cannot reach the open internet. An offline install path is on the roadmap. The substrate is designed to run air-gapped; the models are not yet. Sovereign-model deployment inside the perimeter, where even the model behind the agent runs without outbound traffic, is on the roadmap through our model-training pipeline. In a fully self-hosted deployment, with the model on your GPUs and the record and telemetry on your own infrastructure, your data stays in your perimeter. That is a configuration you set, not the shipped default.
Agency and contractor accountability
Shared accountability across handoffs: which agent acted, under whose authority, against which system.
§ 03 Against the frameworks
Measured against what the audit expects.
FISMA, the NIST 800-53 baseline, and the AI Risk Management Framework point toward a common expectation: action inside the boundary must be attributed, reviewable, and kept where the system is authorized.
This material does not constitute legal or regulatory advice, and Subnet345 holds no FedRAMP authorization or ATO. Assess your obligations with your assessor.
Sources: FISMA (44 U.S.C. 3551); NIST SP 800-53 (Rev 5); NIST AI RMF (AI 100-1); OMB M-25-21 & M-25-22. Regulatory mapping reviewed: August 2026. Informational, not legal advice.
Related
Adjacent sectors, and the substrate itself.
The question we help you answer