Skip to content
AIAssuranceLabs
Menu

Guides

A guide gives the procedure for one obligation or one comparison: the elements the article asks for, the inputs, the numbered steps with the standard clause or protocol step each derives from, at least two commands or configurations with synthetic data, and one threshold or pitfall with its source. The guides derive from the versioned protocols on /methodology/ and the standards on /standards/, each named with its status; every date renders from the regulation data In force.

Technical guides by obligation

Technical guides by obligation
GuideProtocolsICP hubs
Obligations of deployers of high-risk AI systems
Proving AI literacy under the AI Act: the Article 4 evidence file
Provider vs deployer under the AI Act
Technical documentation
Annex IV of the AI Act: assembling the technical documentation
Building an EU AI Act compliance matrix: traceability from obligation to evidence
EU AI Act technical documentation guide: the simplified form for SMEs
Risk management system
Guidelines on classification of high-risk AI systems: applying them to one system
EU AI Act vs Colorado AI Act
AI risk assessment under Article 9: building the risk management file
Quality management system
EU AI Act Article 17 quality management system: building the QMS documentation
Internal control vs third-party conformity assessment: Annex VI and Annex VII
ISO/IEC 42001 and the AI Act: what a QMS audit against Article 17 checks
Transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems
Transparency obligations under Article 50: implementing each of the four
Verify content credentials: C2PA manifest validation step by step
Code of practice on transparency of AI-generated content: what it adds to Article 50
EU AI Act watermark survivability: testing a watermark against re-encoding
Data and data governance
AI bias testing for fairness under the EU AI Act: subgroup disaggregation
EU AI Act vs GDPR: differences and overlap
Accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity
Formal robustness verification with ISO/IEC 24029-2:2023
AI red teaming: running a jailbreak-resistance campaign
Robustness testing with ISO/IEC TR 24029-1
Fundamental rights impact assessment for high-risk AI systems
Fundamental rights impact assessment under the AI Act: conducting one step by step
Obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models
GPAI Code of Practice: the Commission's assessment and the Article 53 evidence it expects
Record-keeping
EU AI Act Article 12 logging: verifying log completeness
Human oversight
Override testing: what AI human oversight under Article 14 looks like in a test
Cross-cutting
Fines under the AI Act: Article 99 and the action that follows each tier

What a guide is and is not

A guide is evidence for the organisation's own file, not a conformity assessment and not legal advice; the legal disclaimer applies. Where the Act sets no numeric threshold, the guide says so and gives the source hierarchy: a harmonised standard cited in the Official Journal, of which none is cited as of the anchor date; a JTC 21 draft with its stage; an ISO/IEC standard; a Commission guideline or code of practice; NIST AI RMF or a sector framework; and the provider's justified state of the art. The scenarios link the guides that answer each situation, and the services run the same protocols within the limits at what we cannot do.