Type-Checked Compliance: Deterministic Guardrails for Agentic Financial Systems Using Lean 4 Theorem Proving
arXiv SecurityArchived Apr 03, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2604.01483v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid evolution of autonomous, agentic artificial intelligence within financial services has introduced an existential architectural crisis: large language models (LLMs) are probabilistic, non-deterministic systems operating in domains that demand absolute, mathematically verifiable compliance guarantees. Existing guardrail solutions -- including NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails and Guardrails AI -- rely on probabilistic classifiers and syntactic valid
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Logic in Computer Science
[Submitted on 1 Apr 2026]
Type-Checked Compliance: Deterministic Guardrails for Agentic Financial Systems Using Lean 4 Theorem Proving
Devakh Rashie, Veda Rashi
The rapid evolution of autonomous, agentic artificial intelligence within financial services has introduced an existential architectural crisis: large language models (LLMs) are probabilistic, non-deterministic systems operating in domains that demand absolute, mathematically verifiable compliance guarantees. Existing guardrail solutions -- including NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails and Guardrails AI -- rely on probabilistic classifiers and syntactic validators that are fundamentally inadequate for enforcing complex multi-variable regulatory constraints mandated by the SEC, FINRA, and OCC. This paper presents the Lean-Agent Protocol, a formal-verification-based AI guardrail platform that leverages the Aristotle neural-symbolic model developed by Harmonic AI to auto-formalize institutional policies into Lean 4 code. Every proposed agentic action is treated as a mathematical conjecture: execution is permitted if and only if the Lean 4 kernel proves that the action satisfies pre-compiled regulatory axioms. This architecture provides cryptographic-level compliance certainty at microsecond latency, directly satisfying SEC Rule 15c3-5, OCC Bulletin 2011-12, FINRA Rule 3110, and CFPB explainability mandates. A three-phase implementation roadmap from shadow verification through enterprise-scale deployment is provided.
Comments: 8 pages, 1 table. Code and live demo available at this https URL and this https URL
Subjects: Logic in Computer Science (cs.LO); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Cryptography and Security (cs.CR)
ACM classes: I.2.1; D.2.4
Cite as: arXiv:2604.01483 [cs.LO]
(or arXiv:2604.01483v1 [cs.LO] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.01483
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Devakh Rashie [view email]
[v1] Wed, 1 Apr 2026 23:39:43 UTC (21 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.LO
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-04
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.AI
cs.CR
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)