Skip to content
Compliance & Risk

Compliance and risk, run as one program.

Valentra Labs operates compliance and cybersecurity risk on one record. Start where your need is sharpest — a HIPAA risk analysis or the full HIPAA Security Rule.

Find Your Path Talk to Us
The problem

Compliance and risk, run by different tools and different owners.

Compliance and risk are usually run by different tools and different owners, so evidence collected for one is invisible to the other. Leadership sees two partial pictures.

Two partial pictures are not the same as one program.

  • 01 / 03 Compliance and risk are usually operated separately, by different owners.
  • 02 / 03 Evidence collected for one is invisible to the other.
  • 03 / 03 Leadership sees two partial pictures and has to reconcile them by hand.

Insight

Insight
Compliance and risk are two views of one program, not two programs.

The Valentra operating principle

The Valentra approach

The Valentra approach: one record, two views.

Valentra Labs runs both on the Managed Security Program: one set of assets, risks, controls, and evidence, and a single board-ready Decision Packet. The two entry points below route you to the right starting place.

  • Valentra Labs runs compliance and cybersecurity risk on one Managed Security Program.
  • One set of assets, risks, controls, and evidence serves both.
  • Evidence collected once is visible from both the compliance and risk view.
  • A single board-ready Decision Packet reports the whole program.
Outcome

What leadership gets one program, one record

  • 01 / 03 Compliance and risk operated on the same record.
  • 02 / 03 Evidence collected once, used everywhere.
  • 03 / 03 A single Decision Packet instead of two partial reports.
Consequence

What running them apart costs

  • Duplicated evidence

    The same proof is collected twice, once for each program.

  • Reconciliation tax

    Leadership spends time squaring two pictures that should be one.

  • Blind spots

    A risk visible to one program is invisible to the other.

  • Conflicting priorities

    Compliance and risk owners pull in different directions with no shared record.

Impact

The first thirty days

  1. Days 1–10 Unify
    • Compliance and risk are brought onto one record.
    • Shared assets, risks, and controls are identified.
  2. Days 11–20 Operate
    • Controls run once and report into both views on Valentra Nexus.
    • Evidence is collected a single time and shared.
  3. Days 21–30 Report
    • A single Decision Packet reports the whole program.
    • Leadership sees one picture instead of two.

Built for the committee that owns the decision

This speaks most to
  • Chief Compliance Officer
  • Chief Information Security Officer
  • Chief Information Officer

The board-ready Decision Packet this produces

Every Valentra Labs program produces the same artifact: a board-ready Decision Packet carrying the situation, options, recommendation, evidence, and approval chain — generated by Valentra Nexus.

Decision Packet · v1.0

Q2 2026 — Crown-Jewel Risk Disposition

pkt_2026-04-17_a3f8e1

Situation

Q2 program review covers the crown-jewel ePHI store and its supporting control envelope. 487 endpoints catalogued across three network segments; 12 unsanctioned SaaS surfaces detected by the shadow-IT scan. Continuous monitoring posture is operating; the residual question is risk acceptance for two compensating-control gaps surfaced this cycle.

Risk & Impact

14 critical findings scored against the revenue-at-risk model. Two compensating gaps (vendor-SOC-2 attestation lapse + patch-cycle #38 awaiting CAB sign-off) carry residual risk of $1.4M in unmitigated regulatory exposure if a HITRUST audit lands before remediation closes. Patient-data confidentiality remains the load-bearing impact dimension.

Options

  1. Accept residual risk through Q3, with quarterly board re-review.
  2. Accelerate remediation by re-prioritizing the patch cycle ahead of the planned Q3 platform migration (cost: 2 engineer-weeks).
  3. Transfer risk via expanded cyber-insurance rider (cost: $48K/yr premium delta; coverage gap on ePHI exfiltration remains).

Recommendation

Pursue Option 2 — accelerate remediation. The 2 engineer-weeks of effort cost is recoverable in Q3; the residual exposure is asymmetric (regulatory floor of $1.4M vs. ~$120K labor delta). Document the patch-cycle re-prioritization as a logged decision with the program owner; close the SOC-2 attestation gap via vendor outreach in the same window. Insurance rider deferred to Q4 review.

Evidence

Twelve evidence artifacts back the recommendation — asset inventory, control mapping, vendor SOC-2 status, residual-risk model, patch-cycle telemetry, and the prior packet's audit trail. One control attestation is overridden with a documented compensating-control narrative; two vendor attestations are pending the Q2 refresh window.
ArtifactHashStatusDetailCaptured
Asset inventory snapshot — 487 endpoints#a3f8e1b2verified—
Control mapping cross-walk — 93 controls#b7c4d9e0verified—
Vendor SOC-2 attestation — current#c9d0e2f1pendingRefresh window opens 2026-05-12; vendor confirmed window…
Vendor SOC-2 attestation — secondary processor#d2e3f4a5pending—
Residual-risk model — revenue-at-risk#e1f2a3b4verified—
Patch cycle #38 — CAB queue position#f3a4b5c6overridden—
Overridden per compensating-control narrative — see attached
Penetration test report — Q1 follow-up#a5b6c7d8stale—
Prior packet audit trail — pkt_2026-01-09_b8c4e2#b6c7d8e9verified—

Approval Chain

CIO and CISO have signed. The CCO signature is pending receipt of the vendor-SOC-2 refresh; the program owner has logged the override and the compensating-control narrative.
  1. Chief Information OfficerM. AlvarezSigned 2026-04-17T14:08:11Z
  2. Chief Information Security OfficerJ. ParkSigned 2026-04-17T14:18:42Z
  3. Chief Compliance Officer—Pending signatureAwaiting vendor SOC-2 refresh — window opens 2026-05-12
Generated by Valentra Nexuspkt_2026-04-17_a3f8e1
FAQ

The questions we hear most.

Where should we start — compliance or risk?

Start where your need is sharpest. Both run on the same Managed Security Program, so beginning with a HIPAA risk analysis or the full HIPAA Security Rule leads to the same record.

Do compliance and risk share evidence?

Yes. On Valentra Nexus, evidence collected for a control is visible from both the compliance and the risk view, so it is gathered once and used in both.

Which frameworks does the hub cover?

The program operates against the HIPAA Security Rule and NIST CSF 2.0, with each control’s framework alignment recorded in one place.

Is this one program or two?

One. Compliance and risk are two views of a single Managed Security Program, reported through one board-ready Decision Packet.

Choose your path

Compliance and risk share one program. Start where your need is sharpest.

Find Your Path Talk to Us

Valentra Labs runs compliance and cybersecurity risk as one program on the Managed Security Program: one set of assets, risks, controls, and evidence on Valentra Nexus, and a single board-ready Decision Packet — entry points route to a HIPAA risk analysis or the full HIPAA Security Rule.

as of