Machine-readable regulation
Also called rules as code, machine-executable regulation
Machine-readable regulation is regulation published in a structured format that software can read and process, not just people. It can range from tagged legal text to rules coded as logic that systems execute directly. The aim is to cut the time and errors involved in turning rules into compliance processes.
How it works
A regulator or firm breaks a rule into defined data points, conditions and outcomes. These are tagged or coded in a standard format, so systems can map them to internal data and controls. Reporting rules are the most advanced case. Supervisors and banks have tested coding reporting instructions so firms run the same logic and produce consistent returns.
Firms spend heavily interpreting rules and rebuilding them in their own systems, often with different results. Shared, structured rules reduce those gaps and make updates faster. Common data standards are a first step. The US Financial Data Transparency Act requires joint data standards across financial regulators, and the EU is building a single access point for financial disclosures.
The rules
Sets common identifiers and machine-readable data standards for financial regulatory data, effective 1 October 2026.
Nine US financial regulators, before agency-specific adoption for filersCreates a single EU access point for financial and sustainability disclosures, collected in electronic, data-extractable formats.
Entities publishing information under listed EU financial services lawsCommon questions
Is machine-readable regulation the same as compliance as code?
They are related. Machine-readable regulation is about how rules are published. Compliance as code is how firms build rules into their own systems and controls. Structured rules make compliance as code easier to build and maintain.
Does any regulator publish fully coded rules?
Most work so far covers reporting rules and data standards rather than whole rulebooks. Regulators in the UK, EU and elsewhere have run pilots coding reporting instructions. Legal text usually remains the binding version.
What are the main benefits?
Consistent interpretation across firms, faster updates when rules change and fewer manual errors. Supervisors also receive more comparable data, which makes analysis and oversight quicker.
What are the limits?
Many rules rely on judgement, such as fairness or proportionality, that does not translate cleanly into code. Firms and regulators must also agree on which version is authoritative if code and legal text differ.
