A structured, conformity-aligned governance system built directly on Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Designed for organisations with real AI exposure. Built for C-suite accountability and for regulatory scrutiny.
Non-compliance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 carries penalties of up to €15 million or 3% of global annual turnover for high-risk AI failures, calculated on global revenue, not EU revenue alone. Authorities can also order immediate market withdrawal and publish enforcement decisions. This system exists to ensure that exposure never materialises.
A comprehensive board-level framework designed to identify high-risk AI exposure and penalty risk under Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
This assessment identifies indicative compliance gaps, penalty exposure, and regulatory risk before conformity obligations apply.
Based on the exposure assessment, Tool 01A, Risk Classification, maps AI systems into high-risk categories, providing clear insights into which systems fall under Annex I and Annex III obligations.
This diagnostic tool clarifies potential regulatory pathways and the penalties associated with non-compliance.
Implements a lifecycle-based risk governance framework aligned to statutory requirements, reducing regulatory exposure and supporting defensible governance under enforcement scrutiny.
For boards, this means documented evidence that risk was identified, assessed, and managed, before an enforcement inquiry arrives.
Establishes documented dataset validation, representativeness analysis, and bias mitigation controls to withstand regulatory inspection and bias-related enforcement challenges.
For procurement teams and regulators, this is the difference between a defensible data governance position and an undocumented liability.
Builds the evidentiary backbone required for conformity assessment and competent authority review, ensuring documentation completeness and lifecycle traceability.
Without this documentation, conformity assessment cannot be completed. Without conformity assessment, CE marking cannot be issued. Without CE marking, EU market access is not lawful.
Ensures traceability, explainability, and operational intervention capability: core requirements for defensible high-risk deployment.
In an enforcement scenario, the ability to reconstruct an AI decision is not optional. It is the difference between demonstrable compliance and regulatory exposure.
Documents measurable performance thresholds, resilience testing protocols, and cybersecurity safeguards required for lawful operation.
Performance claims without documented validation are undefendable under inspection. This tool creates the evidentiary record.
Implements structured ongoing surveillance processes to detect, document, and correct issues throughout the AI system lifecycle.
Post-market monitoring is not a post-launch formality. Under the EU AI Act, it is a continuous statutory obligation.
Provides the workflow and documentation architecture required to complete Annex VI / Annex VII conformity assessment and enable CE marking.
We go through what you run, which duties reach it, and what is outstanding. No obligation, and you keep the findings either way.
Book assessment