Regulatory acceleration in action: Building a more reliable path to approval

Executive summary: For large infrastructure projects, regulatory acceleration depends on the quality and readiness of regulatory work throughout the project lifecycle. The Regulatory Acceleration Platform applies regulatory requirements and expert knowledge to approved project evidence, helping teams develop supportable artifacts, identify deficiencies before submission, and respond efficiently throughout regulatory review.

6-minute read

For a large infrastructure project, a regulatory deficiency may create a schedule impact far out of proportion to the effort required to correct it. A missing requirement or unsupported statement might take days to resolve internally. If the issue surfaces only after months of regulatory review, however, the project cannot recover the time already spent waiting, and resubmission may start another review cycle.

Consider a large infrastructure project moving through a multiyear regulatory process. Its project evidence may support 50+ regulatory artifacts across multiple approval pathways, each with distinct requirements and review expectations. The helps project teams use approved evidence to develop regulatory artifacts, identify gaps before submission, and respond efficiently to reviewer questions.

Following a representative project across the regulatory lifecycle brings those opportunities into focus, from assembling approved evidence through regulatory review and response.

Stage 1: Building the evidence base

Long before a regulatory artifact takes shape, specialists and consultants develop the project record that will support it. Depending on the project, the evidence base may include

• Environmental and technical studies
• Engineering designs
• Geographic information system (GIS) data
• Land and right-of-way information
• Construction plans
• Stakeholder input

Project teams need a clear view of the approved information available for regulatory use, along with any gaps that require additional study or analysis. A filing developed before the supporting evidence is ready risks carrying unresolved gaps into later stages of the process.

The Regulatory Acceleration Platform organizes approved project information into a governed evidence base that specialized AI agents use throughout regulatory work. Teams reuse the same approved sources across regulatory artifacts instead of repeatedly locating and assembling supporting information.

The resulting evidence base provides a common foundation for the regulatory artifacts that follow and gives teams greater visibility into the supporting information available for regulatory work.

Stage 2: Translating one evidence base into agency-specific requirements

The same project evidence supports work across environmental review, land use and access, water and wetlands, cultural and tribal considerations, state and local siting, and construction and mitigation commitments. Reuse, however, does not mean copying the same information from one artifact to another.

Each regulatory body applies its own requirements, guidance, and review criteria. Those expectations shape the artifact’s content and presentation. The project team must account for several factors:

• Applicable requirements and review criteria
• Relevant evidence from the approved project record
• Required structure and format
• Appropriate level of detail
• Relevant precedent from prior approved submissions
• Any gaps between the available evidence and the required content

The resulting task is one of translation: applying a specific regulatory context to a shared body of project evidence.

Regulatory Acceleration Platform uses specialized AI agents to apply the requirements, guidance, review criteria, and relevant precedent for a regulatory artifact to approved project evidence. The platform uses that context to support development of content tailored to the reviewing body.

An artifact may contain accurate, relevant project information and still fall short if its content, structure, or level of detail does not align with the reviewing body’s expectations. The RAP incorporates those expectations into artifact development, reducing the risk of a technically relevant but poorly aligned submission.

Stage 3: Developing a regulatory artifact

One of our sample project’s regulatory workstreams requires an analysis comparing alternative project approaches or locations as part of an environmental review. The analysis draws from several parts of the project record, including site or route information, environmental findings, land constraints, engineering assumptions, construction impacts, and applicable regulatory criteria.

Developing the artifact requires the team to reconcile those inputs into a coherent analysis, support substantive claims with current evidence, and address areas where the available evidence does not fully support the required analysis.

Using approved project evidence and relevant precedent within a workflow configured for the applicable regulatory requirements, the Regulatory Acceleration Platform uses specialized AI agents to assemble a source-backed first draft, with substantive claims connected to their supporting evidence. Reviewers retain visibility into the sources behind the regulatory narrative as they evaluate and refine the artifact.

The RAP also incorporates subject matter expert (SME) expectations into the development workflow. SMEs help define the structure, terminology, level of detail, and other characteristics expected for a particular artifact or section. Those expectations then inform subsequent drafts, reducing repetitive corrections and preserving regulatory expertise for reuse.

Clients have reported first-draft time savings of up to 95 percent, but speed is only part of the value. The RAP reduces the effort required to develop a supportable regulatory artifact while maintaining traceability to the underlying evidence and applying SME expertise more consistently across similar work.

Stage 4: Checking the artifact before starting the regulatory review clock

With the artifact ready for submission, the project team approaches a critical boundary in the regulatory timeline. Before the artifact enters external review, the team still has an opportunity to identify and resolve preventable deficiencies on its own timeline.

Pre-submission assessment therefore needs to address more than document completeness. The project team needs assurance across three dimensions:

• Requirement completeness: The artifact addresses the applicable requirements and includes the required information.
• Evidentiary support: Substantive statements accurately reflect approved project evidence and have sufficient support.
• Regulatory alignment: The structure, format, level of detail, and presentation align with the reviewing body’s expectations.

The Regulatory Acceleration Platform uses specialized AI agents to assess the developing artifact against those three dimensions before submission, flagging missing information, unsupported claims, inconsistencies, and areas that require further review. Subject matter experts evaluate the findings, resolve substantive issues, and retain responsibility for approving agency-facing materials.

Earlier detection keeps corrective work within the portion of the timeline the project team controls. Once the artifact enters the regulatory process, the organization no longer controls the review schedule.

Stage 5: Responding to regulatory feedback efficiently

Once the artifact enters regulatory review, the project team may receive questions about its assumptions, supporting evidence, analysis, or other substantive issues. The project team already has a substantial foundation for its response: the submitted artifact, its supporting evidence, and the regulatory requirements applied during development.

The Regulatory Acceleration Platform uses AI agents to work from the existing project record and regulatory context when supporting the response. Teams can trace a reviewer’s question to the relevant evidence, develop an evidence-backed response, and update the affected regulatory material without reconstructing the basis for the original submission.

After subject matter expert review and approval, new evidence, decisions, or commitments become part of the project record and support subsequent regulatory work. The revised artifact also undergoes the same pre-submission assessment before reentering regulatory review.

The result is a more efficient path from regulatory feedback to a supported response, with the same attention to evidentiary support and regulatory alignment applied before resubmission.

Accelerating the path to approval

Regulatory acceleration comes from carrying approved evidence, regulatory context, and expert knowledge forward throughout the regulatory lifecycle. Artifact development, review, and response build on an evolving project record, preserving traceability and reducing repeated effort.

For capital project leaders, that continuity creates a more reliable regulatory process. Subject matter experts spend less time reconstructing information and correcting recurring issues, while retaining visibility into the evidence and judgment behind agency-facing materials.

Greater regulatory readiness gives project teams more control over the work they own. The result is a more efficient path through regulatory development and response, with fewer preventable cycles standing between a complex project and approval.

Learn more about modernizing regulatory operations