August 2026 deadline. 7 months away. €35M potential fines or 7% of global turnover. Your board is asking about EU AI Act compliance and you don't even know which of your AI systems are classified as high-risk.
You don't have a complete inventory of AI systems in your organization. Nobody does.
Risk classification under EU AI Act is genuinely confusing—high-risk, limited-risk, minimal-risk?
Documentation requirements seem overwhelming and nobody owns them. Legal points at Tech. Tech points at Legal.
Your AI vendors can't clearly explain their compliance status. Or they're making claims you can't verify.
A structured approach to AI governance that's practical, not bureaucratic. Get compliant without grinding operations to a halt.
Complete audit of all AI systems—internal, vendor, embedded. You can't govern what you can't see.
Risk classification under EU AI Act. Identify high-risk systems requiring conformity assessment.
Build required documentation: technical files, risk assessments, human oversight procedures.
Implement governance framework: policies, processes, roles, monitoring. Sustainable compliance.
A practical approach to AI governance that delivers compliance without grinding operations to a halt. Unlike checkbox compliance, GOVERN builds sustainable governance that integrates with existing processes.
You're deploying AI in the EU market. You have multiple AI systems and unclear governance. Your board is asking about compliance. You want practical implementation—not theoretical frameworks that sit on shelves.
Yes, if you deploy AI systems in the EU market or your AI's outputs affect EU citizens. The AI Act has extraterritorial reach similar to GDPR. If your products or services involve EU users, you likely need to comply.
High-risk classification depends on use case, not technology. AI used in HR decisions, credit scoring, education, healthcare, and critical infrastructure falls under high-risk. I conduct systematic inventories to identify which of your systems require conformity assessment.
Prohibited AI practices are banned from February 2025. High-risk system requirements apply from August 2026. Starting now gives you time for proper inventory, classification, documentation, and governance implementation without emergency scrambling.
Partially. Vendors have obligations, but so do deployers. You're responsible for proper use, human oversight, and monitoring—even if the underlying system is compliant. We help you understand your specific obligations and build governance that covers your responsibilities.
Fines are structured by violation severity: up to €35 million or 7% of global annual turnover for prohibited AI practices, up to €15 million or 3% for high-risk system violations, and up to €7.5 million or 1.5% for providing incorrect information. For SMEs, fines are proportionally adjusted. These penalties are comparable to GDPR and are designed to be significant enough to ensure compliance across all organization sizes.
Timeline depends on your starting point: Organizations with existing AI governance frameworks typically need 3-4 months for gap analysis, remediation, and documentation. Organizations starting from scratch need 6-9 months. The biggest time investments are usually AI system inventory (many organizations don't know all their AI systems), bias testing framework implementation, and compliance documentation. Starting before August 2026 is critical—we recommend beginning at least 6 months before the deadline.
We use established, proven tools rather than building from scratch: MLflow for model registry and documentation, Fairlearn and AIF360 for bias detection and testing, SHAP and LIME for explainability, Evidently AI or WhyLabs for production monitoring, and custom governance templates refined across multiple enterprise engagements. This approach reduces implementation time by 50-70% compared to building compliance infrastructure from scratch.
Explore other services that complement this offering
Let's discuss how this service can address your specific challenges and drive real results.