The United States does not have one financial regulatory environment. It has a federal layer and fifty state layers, and which of them reach a given institution depends on what it does, how it is structured, and where its customers are.
We labour this because it is the assumption we see broken most often. Teams reason about "US regulation" as a single object, then discover their position is the intersection of several environments they never listed.
Structure decides which environments you are in
Two institutions offering the same product to the same customers can sit in different sets of environments because of how they are structured and whose permissions they rely on.
That is why we treat entry structure as the highest-leverage decision in US expansion. It sets the environment set, and the environment set constrains almost every product, state and partner decision that follows.
Federal stability is not institutional stability
A quiet period at federal level tells you very little about your own position, because your position also moves when your products, states, partners and volumes move.
In our view that is the argument for continuous testing rather than periodic review. The environment is only one input. The institution is the other, and it changes far more often.
The open question for us is how much of that can be represented well enough to test automatically, and how much still needs someone with judgement looking at a specific configuration. We do not think the honest answer is "all of it" in either direction.