AI that holds up
when the audit comes.

Every regulated organization is already using AI. Someone in your clinic, your firm, or your finance team has pasted patient notes, client matters, or sensitive records into a consumer AI tool this month — because it saves them an hour. That's the reality.

The compliance reality is that consumer AI tools don't sign BAAs, don't scan inputs for PHI, and don't produce a record of what was asked or what was answered. When the audit shows up — or the breach notice — there's no answer. HIPAA penalties run up to $2.19M per violation. GDPR fines run up to €20M or 4% of global turnover. The regulators don't care that the leak came from a chatbot.

A small set of vendors sells a "HIPAA chatbot": a BAA and a prompt box. That's the floor, not the ceiling. Regulated teams don't just need a chat tool — they need document analysis, a developer API, and a way to publish purpose-built internal tools, all under the same compliance + audit layer. Stitching five vendors together to cover what one platform should isn't a strategy.

Our mission

We believe regulated organizations deserve modern AI without an asterisk. A solo practitioner shouldn't have to choose between using a consumer AI tool against the rules and falling behind every clinic that does. A legal team shouldn't have to evaluate four vendors to cover what one platform should. A financial-services team shouldn't have to assemble its own audit trail out of CSV exports.

The compliant choice should be the easy choice. BAA signed up front. PHI handling under your control, per conversation. Every action logged to a tamper-evident audit chain you can verify on your auditor's machine. One platform, one bill, one record of how regulated data was handled.

Why HASP exists

Inside regulated companies — pharmaceutical operations, healthcare workflows touching DEA-controlled processes — the work of staying compliant is paid in operator hours. The 84-question vendor security questionnaire, filled out for the fourth tool this quarter. The six months of access logs pulled into a spreadsheet at midnight before an auditor's site visit. The conversation with a clinician that ends in "no, you can't use that — it doesn't have a BAA." Every new AI tool re-litigates the same controls against the same stack. The work that should be infrastructure is paid in nights and weekends.

HASP started from sitting on that side of the table. The decisions in this product — direct BAAs with every inference provider in the path so PHI moves under coverage you actually signed for, not through a fourth party; a HASP-owned PHI pipeline so the redaction logic and the recognizers aren't rented from a vendor we don't control; a hash-chained audit log signed with Ed25519 so an auditor can verify what happened on their own machine; a FIPS-validated cryptographic module so EPCS workflows have a real answer — are the platform we wished existed when we were the ones answering the auditor.

Where this is going

AI agents acting under delegated human authority will become the dominant caller of inference inside regulated workflows. That future is unsafe on the compliance posture most vendors are selling. Identity, audit, and authorization were designed for humans clicking buttons — not for agents executing thousands of tool calls per hour under a clinician's delegated scope.

HASP is built for that shift now. Agent identity is a first-class layer in the HASP platform — scoped, time-bound, revocable credentials with pre-action tool authorization, on the same audit chain as every human action. The product you can buy today is the chat, the builder, and the API. The decision you're making is on the compliance layer underneath.