TL;DR: CUBE and Madison describe different approaches to regulatory change work for banks. Compare source coverage, links to your own controls, human review and the evidence retained using a real historical change.
Its team must decide whether a publication applies, connect that decision to internal policies and controls, and retain the evidence for later review. A bank evaluating regulatory change software needs more than a list of alerts.
CUBE and Lyzr’s Madison are two products to evaluate for that work. This guide summarizes their published positioning and offers questions for a bank’s own assessment. Confirm current capabilities and terms directly with each vendor.
What does regulatory change management involve?
A regulatory change process helps an institution identify a publication, determine whether it applies, decide what action is needed and retain evidence of the decision. A bank may need to consider information from several authorities as well as its own policies, procedures and controls.
The work requires judgment. A proposal, a final rule and supervisory guidance are not interchangeable. A tool can help organize information, but qualified compliance and legal staff remain responsible for assessing the source and the institution’s obligations.
How CUBE describes its approach
CUBE describes RegPlatform as a regulatory change management product that supports the lifecycle from a regulatory issuance to mapped obligations. Its product material emphasizes regulatory intelligence, applicability, ownership and a record of how a change was handled.
This approach is worth examining when a team needs to monitor a broad set of sources. Ask CUBE for the precise federal and state coverage relevant to your institution, the update process and how the product links a source to your own policies and controls. Verify the current product and contract scope.
How Lyzr describes Madison
Lyzr describes Madison as an agentic governance, risk and compliance product for US banks and credit unions. Its published comparison emphasizes connecting regulatory information to an institution’s obligations, policies, procedures, controls and evidence, with a person responsible for decisions.
Ask Lyzr to demonstrate the workflow on your institution’s own documents and confirm current availability, coverage and permissions. Vendor descriptions are a starting point for evaluation; they do not establish that a tool has correctly interpreted your particular obligations.
Compare the information you need
Ask each vendor for a named list of regulators, jurisdictions and content sources relevant to your bank. Check whether the source text is included in the contract, how quickly updates appear and what happens when a publication is corrected or replaced.
Then test the status of a change. Can the team distinguish a proposal from an effective requirement and see the relevant dates and source? Ask how the product handles uncertainty and how a reviewer can correct an incorrect classification.
Follow a change through your own records
Bring a historical change your compliance team has already assessed. Ask each vendor to show how it connects the source to the affected business activity, policy, procedure and control. Compare the proposed mapping with your team’s documented decision.
A broad summary may be helpful for triage but insufficient for an examination or implementation. The reviewer needs to know which version was assessed, who approved the decision and where supporting evidence can be found. Test gaps and conflicting documents as well as a straightforward example.
Review human authority and system access
Ask who can accept, amend or reject a recommendation and what record the decision creates. Confirm which actions require approval and which systems the product can read or change. Obtain a written description of the permissions and data flows.
Check data handling, retention and subcontractors against your institution’s requirements. A demonstration should use information you are authorized to share. Involve the owners of compliance, legal, security and the connected systems before adopting a live workflow.
Compare the complete operating cost
Request a written scope that separates software, regulatory content, implementation, support and any usage charges. Clarify what is included at launch and what depends on additional configuration or a separate service.
Compare the time your team spends reviewing the output and maintaining the mapping, not just the number of alerts the product produces. Ask how data can be exported and how the service will support a change in your institution’s requirements.
Use AI for support with a clear boundary
AI can help organize source material and prepare work for a qualified reviewer. It does not determine legal applicability or guarantee compliance. Keep the bank’s established review, approval and examination processes in place.
Sistava offers AI Employees for business roles with shared context and connected tools. A team can explore supporting administrative work using approved information and a defined reviewer. Do not assume a general AI employee replaces a specialist regulatory content provider or the bank’s compliance function.
Explore AI Employees for supporting work. Define a task and keep qualified people responsible for decisions. Explore AI Employees.