Using AI Isn’t EU AI Act Compliance.
We help organisations understand their EU AI Act obligations, classify AI systems by risk, identify prohibited and high-risk use cases, strengthen AI governance and controls, and build the documentation needed for practical compliance — so AI becomes a governed business capability, not an unmanaged risk.
Does EU AI Act apply to you?
The Act regulates by risk category — the wrong classification can mean building on a foundation that’s banned outright. A few quick questions, one clear answer.
Which best describes your business?
- Sector—
- EU AI system—
- High-risk tier—
- Prohibited-use risk—
- Existing documentation—
Most companies don’t fail the EU AI Act because their models are bad. They fail because “we use AI” was never the same as knowing which risk tier applies.
The Act regulates by risk category — unacceptable, high, limited, minimal — and the wrong classification can mean building on a foundation that’s banned outright.
Most organisations already use AI somewhere in their operations. The gap is knowing which systems fall within the EU AI Act, what risk category applies, what controls are required, and whether your AI systems can be properly documented and governed. That’s where we help: turning EU AI Act requirements into a practical AI governance program your organisation can actually operate.
A Structured Approach to EU AI Act Readiness.
We begin by assessing your AI systems against the Act’s risk-tiering framework, identifying gaps in documentation and oversight for high-risk systems, and prioritizing remediation. From implementing technical safeguards to documenting conformity evidence, we help you build an environment that is organized, defensible, and ready for regulatory scrutiny.
Everything You Need for EU AI Act Readiness.
Every engagement produces practical, usable deliverables mapped to EU AI Act requirements — from AI inventory and risk classification to prohibited-practice screening, technical documentation, human oversight and ongoing regulatory readiness.
AI System Inventory & Risk-Tier Classification
AI systems identified across the organisation and classified against the EU AI Act’s applicable risk categories and obligations.
Prohibited-Practice Screening
AI use cases screened against prohibited practices to identify banned applications before they create regulatory exposure.
High-Risk System Technical Documentation
Documentation requirements for applicable high-risk AI systems identified and structured to support transparency, assessment and regulatory obligations.
Human Oversight Mechanism Design
Practical human-oversight mechanisms designed for applicable AI systems, including intervention, monitoring and escalation requirements.
Data Governance & Training-Data Review
Training-data practices reviewed for applicable governance, quality, relevance, provenance and risk-management requirements.
Conformity Assessment Preparation
Evidence, documentation and control gaps identified and organised to support applicable EU AI Act conformity assessment requirements.
AI Incident/Malfunction Reporting Process
Processes for identifying, escalating, documenting and reporting applicable AI incidents, malfunctions and serious compliance events.
Vendor/Third-Party AI Component Review
Third-party AI models, components and providers reviewed for applicable obligations, dependencies, documentation and contractual responsibilities.
Ongoing Regulatory Monitoring
Continuous monitoring of EU AI Act guidance, regulatory developments and enforcement practice as the framework continues to mature.
Security work that shows up in the numbers.
Every engagement is measured, not just delivered.
The Right EU AI Act Partner Makes All the Difference.
| Criteria |
// Recommended
BPDoxS
|
// In-house In-house team | // Vendor Typical vendor |
|---|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act Expertise |
Practical expertise across AI risk classification, prohibited practices, high-risk obligations and AI governance requirements
|
Strong understanding of internal AI use, but specialist EU AI Act expertise may depend on available internal resources
|
Specialist AI governance firms may provide strong EU AI Act knowledge where AI regulation is part of their core service
|
| AI Inventory & Risk Classification |
Builds an organisation-wide AI inventory and maps each system to the applicable EU AI Act risk category and obligations
|
Best visibility into internal AI systems, use cases and business context needed for accurate classification
|
Can classify systems within its engagement scope, but usually depends on the client's inventory and business context
|
| Prohibited & High-Risk Controls |
Screens AI use cases for prohibited practices and identifies the governance, risk-management and control requirements for high-risk systems
|
Internal teams may understand their AI systems well, but specialist regulatory interpretation and control mapping may not be available internally
|
Specialist AI governance firms can assess prohibited practices and high-risk controls within the defined engagement scope
|
| Technical Documentation & Evidence |
Structures technical documentation, governance records and evidence needed to demonstrate applicable AI Act requirements
|
Strong access to internal technical records, but documentation may not be structured specifically for EU AI Act requirements
|
Can produce compliance documentation, provided the client supplies sufficient technical and operational evidence
|
| Third-Party AI Risk |
Reviews third-party models, APIs, AI components and providers to identify dependencies, obligations and governance gaps
|
Strongest knowledge of internal AI vendors, contracts and operational dependencies
|
Typically focuses on its own AI component or defined service rather than the client's complete third-party AI ecosystem
|
| Ongoing AI Governance Readiness |
Tracks regulatory guidance, AI system changes, new use cases, risk classifications and emerging compliance requirements
|
Best positioned to own long-term AI governance, provided sufficient internal regulatory and technical expertise remains available
|
Recurring support is possible, but ongoing governance usually remains dependent on the defined vendor engagement and scope
|
Independently recognized.
Rated by clients on Clutch · GoodFirms · Sortlist · DesignRush · RightFirms
Questions Worth Asking.
Everything you need to know before becoming EU AI Act-ready with confidence.
It can. The EU AI Act applies to organisations based in the EU and, in certain circumstances, to organisations outside the EU that place AI systems or general-purpose AI models on the EU market, put them into service in the EU, or whose AI system outputs are used in the EU. Applicability depends on your role, the AI system involved, where it is placed on the market or used, and how it is operated. We assess your actual AI landscape and business model rather than assuming the Act applies — or does not apply — based only on your company's location.
The Act uses a risk-based approach rather than treating every AI system the same. Systems may fall into prohibited practices, high-risk systems, transparency-related obligations or lower-risk categories depending on their intended purpose and use. Classification requires looking at what the AI system does, how it is deployed and whether specific provisions of the Act apply. We help build an AI inventory and assess each relevant system against the applicable requirements so your organisation knows which obligations actually apply.
The EU AI Act prohibits specific AI practices considered to present unacceptable risks, including certain manipulative or deceptive techniques, exploitative practices involving vulnerable groups, certain forms of social scoring and other prohibited uses defined by the Act. The exact prohibition depends on the system's intended purpose and how it is used. We screen your AI use cases against the prohibited-practice requirements so potentially restricted applications are identified before they create regulatory exposure.
An AI system can be considered high-risk when it falls within the high-risk categories defined by the Act, including certain AI systems used as safety components of regulated products and specific systems listed in areas such as employment, education, critical infrastructure, essential services, law enforcement and migration. High-risk systems are subject to additional requirements covering areas such as risk management, data governance, technical documentation, record-keeping, human oversight, accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity. We help determine whether your systems fall within these requirements and identify the controls needed for compliance.
No. The documentation requirements depend on the type and role of the AI system and the obligations that apply to it. High-risk AI systems have significantly more detailed documentation and record-keeping requirements, while other systems may have different transparency or information obligations. We identify the documentation applicable to each system, organise the required evidence and help establish a repeatable documentation process rather than creating unnecessary paperwork for lower-risk AI.
No. An AI policy is only one part of an EU AI Act compliance program. Organisations may also need to classify AI systems, identify prohibited practices, implement risk-management and human-oversight measures, maintain technical documentation, address data governance requirements, manage third-party AI dependencies and meet applicable transparency, reporting or conformity-assessment obligations. We help turn these requirements into documented, operational controls that your teams can actually implement, maintain and evidence.
Know what AI you use. Know what needs to change.
Start with a practical assessment of your AI systems, risk classifications and existing governance controls — then get a clear roadmap to identify prohibited or high-risk use cases, close EU AI Act gaps and build an AI governance program your organisation can actually operate.
