System scope
System boundary, intended use, owners, and deployment context.
Process
How to prepare EU AI Act documents and evidence for review
Use this page to see the process before you start: what your team provides, what the workflow organizes, and what a reviewer receives at the end.
Open the reviewer-facing package
Open the reviewer-facing package
The end result should be a readable report and linked package, not a screenshot of an internal engineering tool.
- Readable EU report for reviewers
- Linked technical materials underneath
- One package instead of scattered internal files
Before you start
What your team needs before starting
The process starts with information your team already knows. The workflow cannot invent system scope, owners, or intended use on its own.
Dossier sections
The sections that need explanations, assumptions, constraints, and references.
Review expectations
The release or governance expectations that determine how much technical support is required.
Step by step
How the documentation process works
The goal is simple: collect the information your team already knows for the selected EU path, attach supporting materials from real runs, and end with one organized set of documents for review.
Describe the system, its intended use, and who owns it.
Add the explanations, limits, and references the package needs.
Attach supporting materials from real runs and turn everything into one organized package for the selected role and scope.
At the end
What your team can hand off at the end
The result should be easy to review, not only technically correct.
Dossier structure
A package organized by the sections that need explanations, assumptions, constraints, and references.
Supporting materials
Attached records such as logs, monitoring notes, declarations, testing summaries, and linked technical materials where they already exist.
Review handoff
A role- and scope-selected draft that legal, governance, procurement, or other internal reviewers can examine and complete.
What still needs human review and approval
What still needs human review and approval
Your legal team keeps full control of classification and sign-off. The builder handles the structure and package handoff.
- Legal classification and final sign-off stay with named people.
- Residual-risk judgment and release trade-offs still stay with your team.
- The workflow keeps the package organized for the next reviewer.
Next step
Choose your next step
Start your draft now or inspect the sample package first.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
What documents need to be prepared for EU AI Act review?
Most teams need a readable dossier, supporting technical materials from real runs, and the sections that still require human explanation, approval, or sign-off. The exact mix depends on system scope, intended use, and the review path you are preparing for.
What does my team need before starting the EU AI Act documentation workflow?
Your team needs to define the system scope, intended use, owners, deployment context, and the dossier sections that need explanations, constraints, or references. The workflow cannot invent those inputs on its own.
How does the EU AI Act documentation workflow work step by step?
First confirm scope and review context. Then draft the sections that need human explanation. After that, attach technical materials from real runs, check structure and completeness, and hand one organized package to the next reviewer.
What is generated automatically and what still needs human review?
The workflow can organize dossier structure, attach supporting materials, and prepare a print-ready and JSON draft. Legal interpretation, residual-risk judgment, deployer-facing wording, and final approval still stay with named people.
What does the reviewer receive at the end?
The reviewing team should receive a readable draft matched to the selected role and scope, linked supporting materials, and one organized package that can be completed and approved by the right human owners.
Can one workflow produce both documents and technical supporting materials?
Yes. The workflow is meant to keep readable review documents and the supporting technical materials in the same package so they do not drift apart.
Does this replace legal review or final approval?
No. The workflow organizes the package and its technical support, but legal interpretation and final approval remain human responsibilities.