Arkna exists because companies are handing real decisions to AI agents. Approving credit. Triaging patients. Assessing claims made on behalf of the public.
When one of those decisions is later questioned, most organisations cannot show what the agent actually did, or prove it to a board, an auditor, or a regulator.
We keep the record. It is redacted by default and verifiable by a third party. We do not price the risk.
What we offer today is deliberately narrow: capture what an agent did, replay any incident, and export an evidence pack mapped to the frameworks your regulator already names. The point is simple: AI risk should be accounted for where it is created, so that failure does not fall on the people who never chose it.
Arkna was built in Australia, by people who had worked where automated decisions get questioned after the fact: regulated industries, where someone is eventually asked to account for what a system did, and the answer has to hold up.
The pattern was always the same. The decision took seconds. The reconstruction took weeks, pieced together from scattered logs that were never meant to be evidence. As AI agents took over more of that decision-making, the distance between what happened and what could be proven only grew.
Arkna exists to close that distance: a record of what your AI agents did, built so the account of it can be produced when it is asked for, not assembled after the fact.
No single company makes AI trustworthy on its own. A record of what an agent did is only useful when the people who rely on it, risk and audit teams, assurance firms, and the advisors who answer to regulators, can read it the same way.
We work with auditors, assurance firms, and risk advisors who bring Arkna into the workflows they already review. The aim is shared: decisions that can be accounted for, and operational resilience that holds up as regulation changes.
If you advise, audit, or assure organisations running AI agents, we should talk.
The fastest way in is a workflow review. For anything else, email us.