As regulators show openness to AI in risk and compliance, firms face the challenge of balancing innovation with organisational and ethical hurdles, transforming R&C from a cost centre into a strategic advantage.
Many risk and compliance (R&C) functions remain rooted in labour‑intensive, siloed processes and legacy tools, leaving them costly, slow and often outpaced by the speed of business and technology. According to the original report, these teams nevertheless hold untapped potential that digital reengineering has largely bypassed , a gap now closing as leaders recognise the return on modernising R&C. [1][2]
A key catalyst is growing regulator openness to the responsible use of AI, which, combined with executive appetite for speed and smart risk‑taking, creates a narrow window to modernise without abandoning controls. Industry commentary highlights both regulators’ caution and their acknowledgement that AI can enhance detection, monitoring and operational resilience when governed appropriately. [1][5]
Practical AI applications for R&C span automation of repetitive workflows, continuous risk‑signal monitoring, real‑time insights for decision‑making and agentic tools that scale skilled teams’ capacity. The PwC piece details how these capabilities can reduce operating expense while enabling R&C functions to act as strategic advisers rather than back‑office validators. [1][2]
Yet implementing AI is technically and organisationally demanding. Problems with data quality and labelling, model interpretability, infrastructure gaps, real‑time processing limits and model drift are common hurdles that require cross‑functional solutions , from data engineering to change management. Thought pieces note that without these foundations, AI outputs can be flawed or misleading. [3][7]
Ethical and governance risks add another layer of complexity. Academic and legal commentary warns that biased training data, opaque models and overreliance on automated decisions can produce discriminatory outcomes or make regulatory explanations difficult; those risks must be mitigated through explainability, audit trails and human oversight. [4][7]
Real‑world experience shows both promise and cost. Senior policymakers and surveys of firms report tangible benefits in fraud detection and efficiency, but also early financial losses and compliance missteps where controls or validation were insufficient , reinforcing the need for “responsible AI” practices embedded from design through deployment. [5][6]
For R&C leaders the path forward is pragmatic: prioritise high‑value use cases, invest in data and engineering foundations, embed transparent governance and monitoring, and phase deployments with human‑in‑the‑loop checkpoints. Done well, AI can convert compliance from a cost centre into a strategic accelerator that helps firms navigate geopolitical, regulatory and technological uncertainty. [1][3][4][7]
📌 Reference Map:
##Reference Map:
- [1] (PwC) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 7
- [2] (PwC summary) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 3
- [3] (Squareboat) – Paragraph 4, Paragraph 7
- [4] (Seattle U Law) – Paragraph 5, Paragraph 7
- [5] (Reuters , Yellen) – Paragraph 2, Paragraph 6
- [6] (Reuters , EY survey) – Paragraph 6
- [7] (Thomson Reuters / corporate solutions) – Paragraph 4, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 7
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
10
Notes:
✅ The narrative is fresh, published on December 4, 2025, with no evidence of prior publication or recycled content. ([pwc.com](https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/cybersecurity-risk-regulatory/library/ai-powered-risk-compliance.html?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
✅ No direct quotes are present in the narrative, indicating original content.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
✅ The narrative originates from PwC, a reputable global professional services firm, enhancing its credibility.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
✅ The claims made in the narrative are plausible and align with current industry trends in AI and risk compliance. ([pwc.com](https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/risk-regulation/pwc-global-compliance-study-2025.pdf?utm_source=openai))
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
✅ The narrative is fresh, original, and originates from a reputable source. ([pwc.com](https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/cybersecurity-risk-regulatory/library/ai-powered-risk-compliance.html?utm_source=openai)) ([pwc.com](https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/risk-regulation/pwc-global-compliance-study-2025.pdf?utm_source=openai))
