The SEC’s 2026 examination priorities AI focus is not a future concern — it is an active compliance obligation for investment advisers and broker-dealers operating today. The Division of Examinations (EXAMS) has signaled clearly that artificial intelligence governance, disclosure practices, and conflict-of-interest management tied to AI-driven tools will be on the examination agenda in the coming cycle. If your compliance program was built before your firm deployed any AI-assisted tools — for portfolio construction, client communication, trade surveillance, or back-office automation — it almost certainly has gaps that an examiner will find before you do. This post covers what the SEC has said, what examiners will look for, and what CCOs should do now.
What the SEC’s 2026 Examination Priorities Say About AI (And Why It Matters Now)
EXAMS publishes its examination priorities annually to give registrants advance notice of where staff attention will concentrate. The 2025 priorities document — which shapes the examination cycle running into 2026 — named AI as a cross-cutting risk area affecting investment advisers, broker-dealers, and investment companies alike. The core concern: firms are deploying AI-assisted tools faster than their compliance infrastructure can keep pace. The SEC AI risk examination focus for 2026 sits at the intersection of three long-standing regulatory obligations: the duty of care, the duty of loyalty, and the requirement to maintain accurate books and records. AI does not create new obligations so much as it stress-tests existing ones. When an algorithm influences a recommendation, the question of whether that recommendation is in the client’s best interest — and whether the adviser can demonstrate it — becomes harder to answer without deliberate governance. The SEC AI governance guidance issued through staff bulletins, risk alerts, and the 2023 proposed rules on predictive data analytics (PDA) collectively signal that EXAMS will not accept "we use a vendor tool" as a compliance answer. Firms are expected to understand what their AI tools do, document that understanding, and supervise outcomes. For investment advisers specifically, the SEC exam priorities 2026 artificial intelligence focus maps directly onto existing Advisers Act obligations. For broker-dealers, Regulation Best Interest and FINRA’s supervision rules provide the parallel framework. Neither population gets a pass on the grounds that AI governance is still "emerging."
The Four AI Governance Areas SEC Examiners Will Scrutinize
Based on the SEC’s published examination priorities, risk alerts, and staff guidance, four domains are most likely to draw examiner attention in the current cycle.
1. Written Policies and Procedures for AI Use
The SEC AI governance examination investment adviser standard starts here. Under Rule 206(4)-7, investment advisers must maintain written policies reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act. Examiners will ask whether those policies specifically address AI — including which tools are approved for use, how they are onboarded, and how ongoing performance is monitored. A generic technology policy that predates the firm’s AI deployments will not satisfy this standard. For broker-dealers, the SEC examination priorities broker-dealer AI focus mirrors FINRA’s existing supervisory system requirements: written supervisory procedures must be updated to reflect actual business practices. If your firm uses an AI-assisted suitability screening tool and your WSPs do not mention it, that is a gap.
2. Oversight and Human Review of AI Outputs
Examiners are specifically interested in whether firms have meaningful human review of AI-generated outputs before those outputs influence client-facing decisions. "Meaningful" is the operative word. A rubber-stamp review process — where a human clicks approve on every AI recommendation without documented analysis — is unlikely to satisfy the SEC AI governance framework investment advisers are expected to maintain. The SEC artificial intelligence compliance requirements in this area are not prescriptive about technology, but they are clear about accountability: someone at the firm must own the AI governance function, and that ownership must be documented.
3. Client Disclosures About AI Use
The SEC has been explicit that using AI to generate personalized recommendations or communications creates disclosure obligations. If an investment adviser uses an AI tool to construct model portfolios or generate client-specific commentary, clients are entitled to know that — and to understand any material limitations or conflicts associated with that use. Form ADV Part 2A is the primary disclosure vehicle for investment advisers. Examiners will review whether AI use is accurately described in brochures and whether those descriptions are specific enough to be meaningful. Boilerplate language about "technology" that does not mention AI will draw scrutiny.
4. Conflicts of Interest Created or Amplified by AI
This is where the SEC AI governance guidance 2025 2026 gets most pointed. AI tools — particularly those provided by third-party vendors with proprietary models — can embed conflicts that the adviser may not fully understand. A robo-advisory platform that optimizes for certain asset classes, a natural language generation tool that favors particular product descriptions, or a vendor whose model is trained on data that systematically advantages certain outcomes: all of these create conflict-of-interest questions that existing disclosure and mitigation frameworks must address. The SEC’s proposed PDA rules, though not yet finalized, make the agency’s enforcement intent clear. Examiners will probe whether firms have identified AI-related conflicts, evaluated their materiality, and either eliminated or disclosed them. For institutions also subject to NYDFS oversight, the cybersecurity dimensions of these same AI tools carry their own regulatory weight — see NYDFS AI Cybersecurity Guidance: What Banks and Financial Institutions Must Know for a detailed treatment of how those obligations interact with SEC conflict-of-interest requirements.
What SEC AI Guidance Means for Your Compliance Program
Translating SEC guidance AI investment adviser obligations into compliance program changes requires more than adding a paragraph to your policies. It requires a structured review of how AI is actually being used across the firm — and that review almost always surfaces surprises. The practical obligations that flow from SEC AI governance guidance 2025 2026 include:
- AI inventory. You cannot govern what you have not catalogued. Compliance programs need a current, complete list of every AI tool in use — including tools embedded in third-party platforms that the firm did not explicitly select as "AI." Many portfolio management systems, CRM platforms, and trading tools now include AI features that were added by the vendor without a formal change notification to the client firm.
- Risk tiering. Not all AI tools carry the same compliance risk. A tool that generates internal meeting summaries carries different risk than one that influences client recommendations. AI risk management investment adviser frameworks should tier tools by their proximity to client-facing decisions and apply proportionate oversight to each tier.
- Vendor due diligence. AI compliance broker-dealer requirements and investment adviser obligations both extend to third-party vendors. The SEC has been clear that outsourcing a function does not outsource the compliance obligation. Firms need to understand what data their vendors use to train models, how model performance is monitored, and what recourse exists when a model produces problematic outputs.
- Testing and validation. For AI tools that influence recommendations or communications, firms should have a documented process for testing model outputs against expected behavior — and for escalating when outputs deviate. This is the AI risk management investment adviser standard that examiners will probe most directly.
- Training. Supervised persons need to understand the AI tools they are using well enough to exercise meaningful oversight. Training records should document that supervised persons received AI-specific instruction, not just general technology training.
How to Prepare Before the Examiner Arrives: Priority Actions for CCOs
The gap between where most compliance programs are today and where SEC AI governance examination investment adviser standards require them to be is real — but it is closeable with deliberate prioritization. The following actions address the highest-probability examination findings.
- Complete your AI inventory within 30 days. Survey every business line. Ask specifically about tools used for client communications, portfolio construction, trade surveillance, marketing, and compliance monitoring. Include tools embedded in platforms the firm did not purchase as "AI products."
- Update your Form ADV and WSPs before your next annual amendment. If your current disclosures do not specifically address AI use, they are likely inaccurate. The SEC artificial intelligence compliance requirements on disclosure are not satisfied by generic technology language.
- Map AI tools to existing conflict-of-interest analysis. For each tool identified in your inventory, ask: does this tool create, amplify, or obscure any conflict of interest? Document the analysis. If conflicts exist, determine whether they are disclosed, mitigated, or both.
- Assign AI governance ownership. The SEC AI risk examination focus 2026 will include questions about who is responsible for AI oversight at the firm. If the answer is "no one specifically," that is a finding waiting to happen. Designate an AI governance owner — whether that is the CCO, CRO, or a cross-functional committee — and document the mandate.
- Evaluate your AI governance tooling. Firms building out AI inventory and monitoring workflows should assess purpose-built solutions alongside manual processes; AI Governance Tools and Platforms for NYDFS-Regulated Banks reviews the leading options, many of which address SEC documentation requirements as well.
- Conduct a mock examination focused on AI. Before EXAMS arrives, work through the likely examination request list for AI governance: policies, training records, vendor contracts, conflict analyses, disclosure documents, and testing logs. Gaps identified internally are far less costly than gaps identified by an examiner.
For a structured approach to this process, see our SEC AI Examination Readiness: Checklist for CCOs and CROs — a step-by-step resource built around the specific documentation and process questions EXAMS is most likely to raise.
Connecting SEC Obligations to Your Broader AI Governance Framework
SEC examination priorities do not exist in isolation. Investment advisers and broker-dealers operating in New York are simultaneously subject to NYDFS cybersecurity requirements that now explicitly address AI risk. The overlap between SEC AI governance framework investment advisers must maintain and NYDFS AI cybersecurity obligations is substantial — and managing them as separate compliance workstreams creates duplication and gaps. For a side-by-side analysis of how these regulatory frameworks align and diverge, see our NYDFS vs. SEC AI Governance Requirements: A Multi-Regulator Compliance Guide. Understanding where the two frameworks share common ground — on vendor oversight, documentation, and board-level accountability — allows compliance teams to build governance structures that satisfy both regulators without running parallel programs. For the full multi-regulator AI governance framework, see our pillar guide: NYDFS AI Cybersecurity Guidance Compliance.
The SEC’s 2026 examination priorities AI focus is specific enough that CCOs can act on it now — and general enough that firms without a structured AI governance program will struggle to respond coherently when the examination request list arrives. The firms that fare best in AI-focused examinations will be those that treated the SEC’s published guidance as an implementation roadmap rather than a warning.
- Ready to assess where your AI governance program stands against SEC examination standards? Book a compliance review to work through your current posture and identify the highest-priority gaps before your next examination cycle.