MAS Technology Risk Management · Structured Regulatory Data

MAS Technology Risk Management, as Data You Can Cite.

357 obligations from the MAS Technology Risk Management (TRM) Guidelines, each quoted verbatim with a legal citation. Ready for your controls, your audits, and your AI.

Download the SampleRequest Access
357 Obligations15 TRM Themes357 Evidence CapturesExcel + JSON + CSVByte-Exact + Cited
GuidanceMAS TRM
MAS.TRM.2021.Sec7.2.1.p23.OBL1
VerbatimSHOULDrecommendation
The FI should implement a configuration management process to maintain accurate information of its hardware and software to have visibility and effective control of its IT systems.

MAS TRM Guidelines, Section 7.2.1, p. 23 (2021)

ActorFI
ActionImplement a configuration management process to maintain accurate hardware and software information
ObjectHardware and software configuration information
Tagsit-service-managementconfiguration-management
IT Service Management · Configuration Management · p.23medium severitysupervisory sanction

Non-adherence may attract MAS supervisory action; the TRM Guidelines set out the standards MAS expects financial institutions to meet.

Source · Technology Risk Management Guidelines

One record from the full register of 357 · The free sample ships 20 like it

357Structured ObligationsEach cited and decomposed
15TRM ThemesGovernance to IT audit
6Structured LayersVerbatim, Normalized, Parsed, Context, Intelligence, Fulfillment
3FormatsExcel, JSON, and CSV
Done For You

Six Months of Work, in Sixty Seconds.

Every one of the 357 MAS TRM obligations, already found, quoted word for word, decomposed, and cited. We did the reading, the rekeying, and the review, so you skip straight to building.

§ 3.1.2 · p.7
Verbatim · Cited
§ 7.2.1 · p.23
Verbatim · Cited
§ 7.7.4 · p.26
Verbatim · Cited
¶ 4.1 · p.3
Verbatim · Cited
¶ 10.2(a) · p.13
Verbatim · Cited
¶ 12.4 · p.15
Verbatim · Cited
ANNEX-B · p.55
Verbatim · Cited
§ 3.1.2 · p.7
Verbatim · Cited
§ 7.2.1 · p.23
Verbatim · Cited
§ 7.7.4 · p.26
Verbatim · Cited
¶ 4.1 · p.3
Verbatim · Cited
§ 3.1.2 · p.7
Verbatim · Cited
§ 7.2.1 · p.23
Verbatim · Cited
§ 7.7.4 · p.26
Verbatim · Cited
¶ 4.1 · p.3
Verbatim · Cited
¶ 10.2(a) · p.13
Verbatim · Cited
¶ 12.4 · p.15
Verbatim · Cited
ANNEX-B · p.55
Verbatim · Cited
§ 3.1.2 · p.7
Verbatim · Cited
§ 7.2.1 · p.23
Verbatim · Cited
§ 7.7.4 · p.26
Verbatim · Cited
¶ 4.1 · p.3
Verbatim · Cited

Every page of the rulebook, read and structured for you

The Hard Work, Already Done

Every obligation found, quoted word for word, normalized, and tied to its source. Your team starts from finished work, not a blank register.

Nothing to Build

Save Months of Manual Work

Skip the extraction, rekeying, cross-referencing, and QA that eat compliance teams alive. Your experts review and implement instead of collecting.

Nothing to Re-Verify

Build the Same Day

Excel, JSON, and CSV ready for obligation registers, controls, policy drafting, audit workflows, and AI grounding from day one.

Start Immediately

Evidence You Can Trust

Every record traces back to the exact page and words of the regulator, with an annotated capture of that page in every pack. A chain your reviews and audits can lean on.

Trust Every Record
See It Free in the SampleRequest Access
A Real Record

See the Data, Not a Description.

One real record, straight from the dataset. The regulator's exact words beside the parsed duty, the generated intelligence, and the evidence checklist that satisfies it.

Get All 20 in the Free Sample

MAS.TRM.2021.Sec3.1.7.p8.OBL1

Technology Risk Governance and Oversight
RESPONSIBLE_FORmedium priorityMAS TRMp.8
Source TextVerbatim · Guidance
The board of directors or a committee delegated by it, is responsible for:
In Plain Language

The board of directors, or a committee it delegates to, carries a defined set of technology risk responsibilities covering the risk management framework, the risk management function, empowerment of senior executives, approval of risk appetite and tolerance, regular strategy review, assessment of management competency, and establishment of an independent audit function.

Parsed Duty
Actorboard of directors or a committee delegated by it
Actiondischarge the listed technology risk governance responsibilities (framework, risk management function, authority and resources for senior executives, risk appetite and tolerance statement, regular strategy reviews, management competency assessment, independent audit function)
Objecttechnology risk governance responsibilities
Structured FieldsDeontic · obligation

Deontic

obligation

Type

Process

Strength

Accountability

Frequency

Ongoing

Status

In Force

Sanction

supervisory

IT & Technology RiskCorporate & Board GovernanceGovernance
Duties and Evidence Checklist7 Duties
1

Confirm a technology risk management framework is established and kept maintained.

Done WhenAn approved technology risk management framework document exists, carrying its approval date and the date of its most recent maintenance review.

EvidenceTechnology risk management framework

2

Confirm a technology risk management function exists and can give an independent view.

Done WhenAn organisation record shows the technology risk management function, its reporting line, and terms of reference covering oversight of the framework and strategy and the provision of an independent view of technology risks.

3

Evidence the authority, resources and board access given to the senior executives who execute the strategy.

Done WhenA record states the authority delegated and the resources allocated to those executives, and shows a standing route by which they reach the board of directors.

EvidenceDelegation of authority and board agenda records

4

Hold the board's approval of the risk appetite and risk tolerance statement.

Done WhenA dated minute records approval of a risk appetite and risk tolerance statement that articulates the nature and extent of technology risks the FI is willing and able to assume.

EvidenceBoard minutes and risk appetite statement

5

Evidence the regular reviews of the technology risk management strategy.

Done WhenA record of each review exists showing the date, who took part, and the conclusion reached on the strategy's continued relevance.

EvidenceStrategy review records

6

Assess the competencies of management for managing technology risks.

Done WhenA dated assessment record covers the managers accountable for technology risk, states the competencies assessed and the conclusion reached, and records the action taken on any shortfall.

EvidenceManagement competency assessment

7

Confirm an independent audit function is established with the stated scope.

Done WhenAn audit charter or equivalent exists establishing the audit function, showing it is independent of the functions it assesses, and stating a scope covering controls, risk management and governance of the FI.

EvidenceAudit charter

ProfytAI Regulatory IntelligenceAnalysis · governance

Why This Exists

Technology risk is a board-level risk because technology underpins the FI's operations and services, and the preceding paragraph makes the point that tone comes from the top. Without a named accountable body, technology risk drifts into being an IT department problem with no one able to set appetite, fund the function, or challenge management's own assessment of itself.

Relationship

This is the whole of paragraph 3.1.7, structured as a single lead-in sentence followed by seven enumerated responsibilities that carry the substantive detail.

Interpretation

Read the seven items as one composite allocation of board accountability rather than seven unrelated tasks. Note the verb in most items is "ensuring", not "doing", so the board is accountable for the arrangement existing and working, not for performing the work. Two items are different in kind. Approving the risk appetite and risk tolerance statement and assessing management competencies are things the board does directly. The provision is drafted as a statement of responsibility rather than a "should", but the TRM Guidelines are supervisory guidance and not a notice, so this sets the standard MAS expects to see rather than a binding legal requirement.

Watchouts

Two separate independent bodies are contemplated in the same provision. The technology risk management function must provide an independent view of technology risks, and separately an independent audit function must assess the effectiveness of controls, risk management and governance. Collapsing both into one team leaves the audit limb unmet, because audit is expected to be able to assess the risk management function itself. Also note that "or a committee delegated by it" permits delegation of the exercise, not of the accountability.

Generated regulatory intelligence, traceable to the citation below. The verbatim source text remains the authority you cite.

MAS TRM, Section 3.1.7, p. 8 (2021)

Consequence. Non-adherence may attract MAS supervisory action; the TRM Guidelines set out the standards MAS expects financial institutions to meet.

Source · Technology Risk Management Guidelines

The record shows the key fields for readability. Every delivered record carries the complete schema: verbatim, normalized, parsed, context, ProfytAI regulatory intelligence, and fulfillment.

The Evidence Chain

When the Examiner Asks,
Show Them the Page.

A structured record is a claim. The evidence capture is the proof. It shows the source page with the duty highlighted, stamped with the obligation ID, document, page, capture time, and source URL. When an auditor asks where a requirement came from, you hand them the page.

Approval Granted by MASReproduction Permitted · MAS-2026-07-01776
Evidence capture for MAS.CH.2024.Sec4.1.p3.OBL1: the source page with the obligation highlighted and the verification footer
Cyber Hygiene · BindingMAS.CH.2024.Sec4.1.p3.OBL1Notice FSM-N06, paragraph 4.1, p. 3
Evidence capture for MAS.TRM.2021.Sec7.2.1.p23.OBL1: the source page with the obligation highlighted and the verification footer
TRM · GuidanceMAS.TRM.2021.Sec7.2.1.p23.OBL1TRM Guidelines, Section 7.2.1, p. 23

Shown here as an on-page preview of the evidence layer. MAS has granted written permission to redistribute reproductions of its Notices and Guidelines, so the source-page captures now ship with every MAS package. Every record acknowledges MAS as the source and links the MAS website for the latest available version.

ProfytAI Regulatory Intelligence

Regulations Are Complex. Understanding Them Shouldn't Be.

Every obligation ships with generated regulatory intelligence that explains what it means, why it matters, and how teams typically implement it, all traceable back to the regulator's exact words.

One Record From the Dataset

SHOULDGuidanceMAS TRMMAS.TRM.2021.Sec3.1.2.p7.OBL1
Section 3.1.2Page 7

Verbatim

Both the board of directors and senior management should have members with the knowledge to understand and manage technology risks, which include risks posed by cyber threats.

ProfytAI Regulatory Intelligence

The board and senior management should include members who are capable of understanding and managing technology risk, including cyber threat risk. MAS expects technology-literate leadership at the top of the institution.

Requirement Type

Governance

Relationship

One of the sequential governance expectations in section 3.1 on the role of the board and senior management, sitting between the general reliance-on-technology premise (3.1.1) and the appointment of accountable technology officers (3.1.3).

Why This Exists

MAS expects technology risk to be governed at the top of the institution; without technology-literate leadership, board oversight of IT and cyber risk is nominal rather than effective.

Reader Watchouts

The provision does not require a dedicated technology committee or a named technology director. Reading in a specific structure goes beyond the text, which only addresses knowledge among members.

Interpretation Note · This is TRM guidance (SHOULD), not a binding notice requirement; it addresses collective competence of the board and senior management, not a named individual.

Why This Is Incredibly Valuable

From Raw Regulation to Operational Knowledge.

Teams spend weeks reading regulations, interpreting intent, writing internal guidance, and explaining requirements to engineers and executives. That heavy lifting ships finished, on every record.

Understand

A plain-language explanation of what the regulator is actually requiring.

Contextualize

Every obligation is connected to its place in the regulation, its parent clause, and its siblings.

Operationalize

Implementation considerations move your team from requirement to execution.

Knowledge Ready

Structured, searchable, and ready to power your compliance operations and AI systems.

Power Everything

01AI Assistants and Chatbots
02RAG Applications
03Semantic Search
04Policy Generation
05Control Libraries
06Audit Workpapers
07Knowledge Bases
08Regulatory Dashboards
09Developer Documentation

Interpretation Already Done

Every obligation includes a concise explanation of what the regulator is actually requiring, eliminating hours of manual interpretation.

Train Teams Faster

New analysts, engineers, auditors, and executives understand complex regulations in minutes instead of reading hundreds of pages.

Build AI That Understands

Feed your assistants structured regulatory intelligence optimized for search and RAG, not raw legal text.

Compliance Becomes Knowledge

The regulation turns into a reusable organizational asset, not a document someone has to read again every year.

AI summaries are generated from the structured regulatory obligations and preserve traceability back to the originating regulation, its citation, and the supporting evidence. They accelerate understanding, and the byte-exact verbatim text remains the authority you cite.

AI Policy Statements
Premium Add-On

Months of Policy Drafting, Already Done.

A register tells you what the regulator requires. Your examiner still expects a policy that answers it. All 357 MAS obligations are covered by 65 drafted, citation-anchored policy statements, one per policy group. Your experts review and adopt. No other regulatory data provider ships this.

ProfytAI Dataset · Policy Statement Record

DraftedAI Policy StatementMAS.TRM.2021.Sec3.OBL.GRP.01

Policy Statement

Both the Board of Directors and senior management include members with the knowledge to understand and manage technology risks, including risks posed by cyber threats. The Board of Directors and senior management ensure the appointment of a Chief Information Officer, Chief Technology Officer, or Head of IT, together with a Chief Information Security Officer or Head of Information Security, each possessing the requisite expertise and experience, and these appointments are minimally approved by the Chief Executive Officer. The Board of Directors and senior management ensure that a technology risk management strategy is established and implemented, and that key IT decisions are made consistent with the Bank's risk appetite. Given that technology underpins many of the Bank's operations and services, the Board of Directors and senior management set the tone from the top and cultivate a strong culture of technology risk awareness and management at all levels of staff within the Bank.

Covers

MAS.TRM.2021.Sec3.1.2.p7.OBL1MAS.TRM.2021.Sec3.1.3.p7.OBL1MAS.TRM.2021.Sec3.1.3.p7.OBL2MAS.TRM.2021.Sec3.1.4.p7.OBL1MAS.TRM.2021.Sec3.1.5.p7.OBL1MAS.TRM.2021.Sec3.1.6.p7.OBL1

Source · Technology Risk Management Guidelines, 2021, 3.1.2.p7 (Technology Risk Governance and Oversight), p.7

Your Bank Policy Document

Profyt BankTechnology Risk Management Policy

3. Technology Risk Governance and Oversight

Both the Board of Directors and senior management include members with the knowledge to understand and manage technology risks, including risks posed by cyber threats. The Board of Directors and senior management ensure the appointment of a Chief Information Officer, Chief Technology Officer, or Head of IT, together with a Chief Information Security Officer or Head of Information Security, each possessing the requisite expertise and experience, and these appointments are minimally approved by the Chief Executive Officer. The Board of Directors and senior management ensure that a technology risk management strategy is established and implemented, and that key IT decisions are made consistent with the Bank's risk appetite. Given that technology underpins many of the Bank's operations and services, the Board of Directors and senior management set the tone from the top and cultivate a strong culture of technology risk awareness and management at all levels of staff within the Bank.

Inserted
Profyt Bank, Inc. · ConfidentialPage 7 of 31

Illustration · Profyt Bank Is Our Synthetic Demonstration Institution

Policy Without Pain

Months of drafting, interpreting, and formatting disappear into a simple review and approval process.

Months Reclaimed

What once consumed an entire quarter is reduced to days, giving your team time to focus on actual risk.

Complexity, Gone

Thousands of pages become a structured policy library your team can actually navigate, review, and maintain.

Weekends Restored

The late nights spent drafting policies become time spent leading your program, or simply living your life.

Every statement is AI-drafted for your review and adoption, and traces to its source citation. You approve the policy. We retire the drafting.

Talk to Us About the Policy LibraryContact Us · See Pricing
Manual vs Licensed

Building a MAS Register by Hand Is Slow, Fragile, and Hard to Prove.

The obligations do not change while you type them. The register does the reading once, so your team spends its time on the work only they can do.

Building It by Hand

Time to a register

Weeks of reading long PDFs and rekeying into spreadsheets.

The source words

Paraphrased as someone types. Drift creeps in quietly.

Proof for the examiner

Hunt back through the PDF to find where a duty came from.

Grounding your AI

Copy-paste with no provenance your copilot can stand behind.

Day One

Licensing the Register

Time to a register

Download and load on day one. The reading is done.

The source words

Byte-exact verbatim on every record. Nothing paraphrased.

Proof for the examiner

A legal citation and a source page on every obligation.

Grounding your AI

Cited, byte-exact text your copilots can quote with confidence.

Provenance and QA

Data Your Reviewers Can Sign Off On.

Regulatory data earns its keep in front of an auditor. Every release is built to survive that review.

Versioned, Never Silently Stale

Dated releases with a change log. Your citations stay anchored to the exact text as it stood on your assessment date, and updates ship as a new version when MAS reissues an instrument.

Byte-Exact and Page-Anchored

Every record quotes the source verbatim with a legal citation and page. Build gates reject any record missing its verbatim text or its citation, so traceability is enforced, not aspirational.

Errata Commitment

Report a confirmed extraction error and we correct it and reissue the affected dataset to every licensee of that version, free.

Procurement Ready

Every delivery ships with a data dictionary, methodology and QA notes, and license terms. A signed DPA and security documentation are available on request.

Pricing

Start Free. License the Tier You Need.

One free sample, then three one-time license tiers of the complete TRM register. Every tier is all 357 obligations. You choose how much derived work rides on top.

Part of the ProfytAI Catalog · Browse All Datasets

MAS TRM Verification Sample

Free

Twenty real obligations spread across the whole instrument, complete in every respect and verifiable against the published PDF before you speak to anybody.

Get the Free Sample

MAS TRM Foundation

Every obligation of the TRM Guidelines, addressed, classified, quoted byte-exactly, and pictured on the page the regulator printed it on.

$4,800one-time
  • All 357 TRM obligations, all 15 themes
  • The parsed duty on every record, with actor, action, modal, and conditions
  • The full reading window on every record: the paragraph before, the obligation's own, and the paragraph after
  • An annotated source-page capture for every obligation, reproduced with MAS's written permission
  • Hierarchy, functional domains, and topics
  • Exact page citations into the official MAS PDF, printed and PDF numbering
  • JSON, CSV, and Excel, with the official MAS source linked
  • One-time purchase, perpetual single-entity licence to this edition, no updates
Full Spec and Sample Records

One-Time Purchase · Single-Org License

Most Popular

MAS TRM Compliance Intelligence

The rules, plus what each one requires in practice. Derived requirements, testable checklists, and analyst commentary, each item quoting the source that supports it.

$15,000one-time
  • Everything in Foundation, on all 357 obligations, page captures included
  • ProfytAI Regulatory Intelligence, with summary, context summary, applicability, actors, intended outcome, why it exists, interpretation notes, and watchouts
  • Fulfillment, with derived requirements and a testable evidence checklist on every duty
  • Each derived item quotes the source that supports it
  • JSON, CSV, and Excel, with the official MAS source linked
  • One-time purchase, perpetual single-entity licence to this edition, no updates
Full Spec and Sample Records

One-Time Purchase · Single-Org License

Premium

MAS TRM Policy Suite

Everything in Compliance Intelligence, plus wording a bank can adopt. Bank-voice policy prose written per obligation group and anchored to the citation it stands on.

$28,000one-time
  • Everything in Compliance Intelligence, on all 357 obligations, page captures included
  • Bank-voice Policy Statements, written per obligation group
  • Each statement anchored to the citation it stands on
  • Adoption-ready wording your bank can put into policy
  • JSON, CSV, and Excel, with the official MAS source linked
  • One-time purchase, perpetual single-entity licence to this edition, no updates
Full Spec and Sample Records

One-Time Purchase · Single-Org License

Need redistribution, OEM, or multi-entity terms? See Licensing

Start With the Sample. Grow Into the Register.

Judge the depth for yourself, then license the jurisdiction you need. When you are ready to grade your own policies against it, the platform is one conversation away.

Request AccessDownload the Sample
Sample→Consultation→Register→Platform→Subscription