Strategy
JPMorgan Chase — Digital Sovereignty
Cross-jurisdictional analysis and modular architecture recommendations for operating under incompatible digital-sovereignty regimes in the EU, India, and China.
Role: SIPA Capstone team member (client: JPMorgan Chase)
Situation
Geopolitical tension and regulatory divergence are forcing global banks to operate across data localization, cloud, AI governance, and third-party risk regimes that do not share a single compliant architecture.
Decision question
Cross-jurisdictional analysis and modular architecture recommendations for operating under incompatible digital-sovereignty regimes in the EU, India, and China.
Data and constraints
See method and results below for sample, coverage, and documented limits.
Method
Mapped digital and AI sovereignty regimes across the EU, India, and China (including GDPR, CRA, EUCS; RBI, DPDP Act, SEBI; CSL, DSL, PIPL). Built a conflict matrix translating regulatory divergence into concrete risk exposure and recommended a modular sovereignty architecture rather than a single unified global stack.
Tools
- Regulatory and policy analysis
- Cross-jurisdictional risk matrix
- Executive presentation
- Client reporting
Deliverables
- Client final report
- Capstone presentation for JPMorgan Chase
- Cross-jurisdictional conflict matrix
- Modular sovereignty architecture recommendation
Outcome / decision value
- Delivered a board-facing framing: JPMC- s ability to remain operational across the EU, India, and China depends on a legally sound, technically cost-effective, and compliant policy across three incompatible regimes simultaneously.