Screen risk, draft Article 50 notices, and organize evidence against current EU guidance.
Turn your system facts into a reviewable EU AI Act risk screen, transparency notices, and documentation prompts—without treating software output as certification.
Organize an AI-system inventory, risk questions, documentation prompts, and transparency disclosures for review against the EU AI Act.
Uses your answers to suggest a risk category and relevant documentation prompts. Treat the result as a screening aid, not a binding legal classification.
Save the information behind your assessment and revisit it as the system or official guidance changes. Scheduled monitoring is a beta research aid; it does not automatically establish compliance.
Three practical steps in an evidence-backed EU AI Act compliance workflow
Answer questions about your AI system: what it does, how it makes decisions, what data it uses, and who it affects.
The tool suggests a risk category and review questions from your answers. Validate the intended purpose, role, exceptions, and current official guidance before relying on it.
Create editable assessment, transparency, and technical-documentation drafts. PolicyForge does not issue a conformity declaration or certification.
The EU AI Act is a risk-based legal framework for AI. Prohibited-practice and AI-literacy rules have applied since February 2025, GPAI rules since August 2025, and Article 50 transparency obligations since August 2, 2026. High-risk timing depends on the category and the current implementation timetable.
Obligations depend on whether an organization is a provider, deployer, importer, distributor, product manufacturer, authorized representative, or affected operator, plus where the system or its output is placed or used. Classify the role and system before assuming a duty.
Requirements vary by operator role and system type. Article 50 covers specified interactions and AI-generated or manipulated content; GPAI providers have separate documentation, copyright, and training-summary duties; high-risk providers face risk, data, documentation, logging, oversight, quality, and conformity duties when those provisions apply.
A practical screening summary; final classification depends on the Act, intended purpose, operator role, and applicable exceptions
Banned AI practices
Strict requirements & conformity assessment
Transparency obligations
Voluntary compliance
Purpose-built for the EU AI Act's phased, role-specific implementation timeline
Screens the intended purpose against risk questions and Annex III themes. The result is a review aid, not an automatic or legally binding classification.
Creates editable documentation prompts from supplied facts. It does not prove that a risk-management, data-governance, quality, or conformity process exists.
Records official milestones and sources, including February 2025 prohibitions, August 2025 GPAI rules, August 2026 Article 50 transparency rules, and the current category-specific high-risk timetable.
Review these common gaps against the duties and penalty tier that actually applies
Incorrectly assessing AI system as low-risk when it's actually high-risk. High-risk includes: HR/recruitment AI, credit scoring, law enforcement, critical infrastructure, and systems affecting safety/rights. Misclassification leads to non-compliance and penalties.
High-risk AI requires continuous risk management throughout the lifecycle: risk identification, estimation/evaluation, mitigation, and monitoring. One-time assessment isn't enough—you need ongoing processes.
Not documenting training data sources, quality measures, biases, or relevance. AI Act requires detailed data governance for high-risk systems: data quality checks, bias testing, representativeness validation.
Not maintaining comprehensive technical documentation covering: system design, development process, data sources, training methodology, testing procedures, performance metrics, and limitations. Required for conformity assessment.
Failing to inform users they're interacting with AI (chatbots, deepfakes). Limited-risk AI must clearly disclose AI usage. High-risk AI deployers must inform affected persons about the system's use and purpose.
General-purpose AI/foundation model providers must maintain technical documentation, comply with EU copyright law, publish training data summaries, and (if systemic risk) conduct adversarial testing and report serious incidents.
High-risk AI requires human oversight measures: humans must understand the system, monitor operation, interpret outputs, and intervene when needed. Fully autonomous high-risk AI without human oversight violates the Act.
Timeline and scope reviewed August 11, 2026. Always check the current legal text and Commission guidance for your role and system.
Everything you need to know about EU AI Act compliance
Article 50 transparency duties have applied since August 2, 2026. Start a sourced assessment and prepare reviewable documentation now.
No credit card required • Screening aid, not certification • Review before relying on any classification