Where we work
We serve the markets below on-site, and deliver AI Academy and agent engagements nationally.
Our engineers and assessors work on-site with your teams, which for this kind of work tends to be the point: scoping what a model touches means sitting with the people who built it.
Markets we serve on-site
Bay Area, Sacramento, and Omaha match Jacobian Engineering's footprint. Nashville, Chattanooga, and Richmond are additional service areas.
- San Francisco, CA
Where the AI is the product
San Francisco buyers are usually not adopting someone else’s AI — they are shipping their own. That inverts the governance question. The exposure is not "what did we buy," it is "what did we build, what does it touch, and can we describe it to a customer’s security reviewer."
AI governance in San Francisco → - San Jose, CA
Selling AI into regulated buyers
South Bay companies tend to sit one step upstream of the regulated organization. You are not the covered entity — your customer is, and they are increasingly required to prove that their vendors are governed too.
AI governance in San Jose → - Oakland, CA
AI inside the HIPAA boundary
Oakland and the wider East Bay concentrate exactly the organizations TrustEdge was built for: health systems, county agencies, community clinics and the nonprofits that serve them. These are institutions where an AI feature does not get to be an experiment.
AI governance in Oakland → - Alameda, CA
Our home market
Alameda is where Jacobian Engineering spent twenty years doing compliance work before TrustEdge existed. The AI practice grew out of that book — the same assessors, the same clients, asking a new set of questions about systems they had started deploying.
AI governance in Alameda → - Sacramento, CA
Where the rules are written, and applied
Sacramento is unusual: it is both where California’s AI rules are made and a metro full of organizations that have to comply with them. State agencies, health plans, and their contractors are adopting AI while the statutes governing it are still arriving.
AI governance in Sacramento → - Omaha, NE
Your regulator is rarely in your state
Omaha concentrates insurance, financial services, healthcare and transportation — industries governed less by where the company sits than by where it does business, and by the sector frameworks that follow the activity rather than the address.
AI governance in Omaha → - Nashville, TN
Healthcare and a recorded voice, under narrow laws
Nashville buyers are split between healthcare and the music business, and those two groups do not have the same AI problem. A health system is usually deciding what a tool does inside work it already performs. A label, studio, or voice vendor is often deciding what happens when a model reproduces an identifiable person.
AI governance in Nashville → - Chattanooga, TN
Operations running ahead of any AI statute
Chattanooga’s weight is manufacturing, logistics, insurance operations, energy and utilities, and healthcare delivery. AI shows up as a feature on a line, in a claim, or inside software the company already licensed, not as a product the company is taking to market.
AI governance in Chattanooga →AI readiness assessment services in Chattanooga → - Richmond, VA
No Virginia AI Act to comply with
Richmond is a government and professional-services metro: state agencies and the vendors that sell to them, insurers and other financial institutions, health systems, law firms, and campuses. The AI question is usually whether a Virginia statute exists to comply with. It does not.
AI governance in Richmond → - Arlington, VA
Customer contracts, not a Virginia AI act
Arlington’s buyers are not the state-capital mix a Richmond page is written for. The metro’s weight sits with federal agencies, contractors that sell to them, and defense and national-security work, with associations and professional services around that core. The AI terms that bind are usually the ones a customer puts in a contract.
AI governance in Arlington → - Salt Lake City, UT
On-request disclosure, and a chatbot statute
Salt Lake City concentrates healthcare delivery, health insurance, financial services, technology, and professional services. Licensed people — clinicians, therapists, accountants — and consumer tools that talk to a person are where the Utah statute actually sorts. The law is the country’s first, and it is narrower than most summaries of it.
AI governance in Salt Lake City → - Austin, TX
Intent-based rules, and no city overlay
Austin’s weight, for this work, sits in technology, healthcare, state government, and professional services. A private technology deployment is under an intent statute. A state agency has duties a private company does not. A clinic or a payer is also under healthcare statutes that are not TRAIGA.
AI governance in Austin → - Denver, CO
Repealed and replaced before it took effect
Denver concentrates energy, healthcare, financial services, technology, and professional services, and it is where Colorado state government sits. Some buyers in that mix prepared for the 2024 Colorado AI statute. That statute was repealed and replaced before it took effect.
AI governance in Denver → - Memphis, TN
Two deepfake statutes, and no comprehensive law
Memphis, for this page, means distribution, healthcare delivery, food production, and hospitality. Nashville and Chattanooga cover the voice, plant and freight questions; this page covers the two Tennessee deepfake statutes.
AI governance in Memphis → - San Antonio, TX
Private biometric consent, government-only bans
San Antonio’s weight, for this page, sits in healthcare, financial services, bioscience, hospitality, and technology services, with city and county government beside the private work. Here the lead questions are private capture of a biometric identifier, and two prohibitions that never attach to a private business.
AI governance in San Antonio → - Baltimore, MD
Frameworks, contracts, and other states
Baltimore’s organizations, for this work, cluster in healthcare, life sciences, federal-adjacent work, universities, port and logistics, and financial services. That mix is the reason a single state citation would be the wrong way to open.
AI governance in Baltimore → - Pittsburgh, PA
Narrow laws, and enforcement already underway
Pittsburgh’s weight sits in healthcare, insurance and financial services, manufacturing, higher education, and energy. Pennsylvania has not enacted a comprehensive AI governance law. What it has is narrow: two criminal statutes, an insurance notice that is guidance rather than a regulation, and an executive order that binds Commonwealth agencies and no private organization.
AI governance in Pittsburgh → - Tampa, FL
No comprehensive statute, and a deceptive-practices theory
Tampa means healthcare, insurance and financial services, tourism and hospitality, and port and logistics. Florida tried twice in 2026 to pass an Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights. The Senate passed it both times. The House did not take it up. Those buyers do not have a comprehensive Florida AI statute to comply with.
AI governance in Tampa → - Providence, RI
Several buyer types, and separate inventories
Providence concentrates healthcare, higher education, insurance and financial services, manufacturing and defense-adjacent work, and state government. A clinic, a campus, an insurer, a plant, and an agency can share the metro and still need separate inventories.
AI governance in Providence → - Albany, NY
Enacted, in three layers that rarely meet
Albany is the capital. The buyers on this page are state agencies and the organizations that sell to them, with healthcare, higher education, and insurance and financial services beside that core. New York’s status is enacted. The enacted picture is three layers, and they rarely touch the same organization.
AI governance in Albany →
Not on the list?
AI Academy and agent engagements are delivered nationally. Tell us where you are.