RiskMandate v1.34.4
The business case · Policy engine

Cedar, by the risk it changes

A policy language and engine whose decisions default to deny: if no policy permits a request, the answer is no. Written as an answer, that is read-only access where only reading is permitted and the application holding the data enforces the decision.

Open source: Apache-2.0 · CNCF (sandbox) · get involved

The deployment: The model's typical deployment, with the answers this project addresses stated as they are without it: can read and change the data in its reach.

The model: the RiskGraph Explorer's 49 facts, 49 risks and 10 roles, copied into this site with its provenance; the register below is computed, not written. How.

01 · What it does

In its own words, and nothing more.

  • Authorisation decisions that deny when nothing permits. “Otherwise (i.e., no policy is satisfied), the final result is Deny.” · docs.cedarpolicy.com, read 24 September 2026
02 · The answers it changes

Same deployment, different answers.

The model asks sixteen questions about an agent deployment. A product’s effect is written as the answers it changes, and each change says what kind of change it is: a statement of what is true, an expectation the agent is asked to meet, a setting, or a boundary enforced by something the agent’s grant does not include.

The questionWithout itWith itHow, and who holds it
What can it do with that data?Reads and changes itReads ita boundary, held by the deployer. Only where the application holding the resource enforces the decision the agent cannot override. “Otherwise (i.e., no policy is satisfied), the final result is Deny.” · docs.cedarpolicy.com, read 24 September 2026
03 · The register, before and after

2 retired, 23 unchanged.

Computed from the model for the deployment above: every risk that holds without it, and every risk that holds with it.

2retired
0new
25 → 23entries on the register

Retired

RISK-16
Regulated data is modifiable by an agentoperational · CISO, DPO, Customer-facing service owner, Chief Product Officer
RISK-26
Records the organisation answers for can change without a person deciding they shouldoperational · Board
04 · From the operator to the board

Who carries less, and who carries the same.

Each risk is assigned to the roles it belongs to, and each role reports to another until the board. The count beside each role is the entries it holds without the product and with it.

Operators

who run it, and are paged when it goes wrong
SRE / platform on-call9 → 9
Customer-facing service owner3 → 2 −1retired RISK-16

Owners

who own what it may touch, and can say what happened
Platform owner3 → 3
CISO9 → 8 −1retired RISK-16
DPO7 → 6 −1retired RISK-16

Executives

who answer for speed, product, cost and the whole
CTO3 → 3
Chief Product Officer5 → 4 −1retired RISK-16
CFO0 → 0
CEO3 → 3

The board

who must be able to defend how it is run
Board5 → 4 −1retired RISK-26

At the board: the corporate register

Corporate risks have no facts of their own. They hold while any risk that leads into them holds, so a single product rarely retires one. What it changes is how many reasons the board is being given.

CORP-1
Regulatory exposure — the organisation may be operating outside obligations it is subject tostill holds · risks leading into it: 3 before, 2 after
CORP-2
Customer harm — customers may be affected by decisions or changes nobody madestill holds · risks leading into it: 3 before, 2 after
CORP-3
Operational resilience — the organisation may be unable to restore a service it depends onstill holds · risks leading into it: 1 before, 1 after
CORP-6
Loss of control — the organisation operates a system it may not be able to stop or explainstill holds · risks leading into it: 2 before, 2 after
06 · What it adds

Every product is also a new thing in the estate.

Its documentation states that a policy whose evaluation errors is skipped: if a policy's evaluation returns error, the policy does not factor into the authorization response. A forbid policy that errors therefore does not deny.

Free, but not free

What adopting it takes, before any of this is true.

An open-source project costs nothing to download and something to adopt. Every change above depends on the work below, and most of it is customisation to your own deployment.

  • Write the policies for your own resources and actions.
  • Test the forbid policies for errors, because an erroring forbid is skipped.
  • Enforce in the application that holds the data.
What this does not claim

The limits of the case, stated by the case.

  • That it was tested. Nothing was installed or run; every change rests on the documentation quoted beside it.
  • That the register is complete. It is one model, for one stated deployment. A different deployment changes the answers, and so the case.

Next. Published, and sent to the project's maintainers at the same time. If a change is wrong, or another answer should move, the case changes with the date they said so.

The same method, for your product

Make the case in the register’s own terms.

If you build a security product for agents, the case for it can be written the same way: what it does in your own words, the answers it changes, and the register before and after. If a case here is wrong about you, tell us and it changes with a date.