When an AI system is examined, the hard question is not whether the organization has policies. It is whether the system's role, obligations, evidence, changes, decisions and gaps can be reconstructed and defended. TA-14 turns scattered compliance material into an operating evidence record.
The Regulation contains documentation, recordkeeping, conformity, monitoring, oversight and information duties that vary by system and operator role. This page uses audit readiness as an operational evidence-preparation concept; it does not imply that every AI system is subject to one universal statutory audit.
Start with the actual system, role, use case and evidence boundary. The same regulation can produce different obligations for different actors and systems.
Audit readiness starts with system identity, version, intended purpose, deployment context, operator role and the relevant time period. A folder of company-wide AI policies does not establish the state of one system.
Requirements should connect to current documents, logs, tests, notices, controls, accountable owners and authoritative sources. Unsupported assertions should remain visible as gaps.
A defensible record should preserve versions, material changes, incidents, interventions, approvals and revalidation history so a reviewer can distinguish present evidence from superseded evidence.
Human oversight, approvals, escalation, corrective action and other consequential decisions should be attributable to identified actors and bounded authority rather than implied by a policy document.
The goal is not merely to reach an answer. It is to preserve what facts, evidence, scope and limitations supported that answer at that time.
Define the AI system, version, use context, operator role, applicable obligation set and review period before assembling evidence.
For each applicable or potentially applicable duty, identify the supporting artifact, source, owner, date, status and unresolved gap.
Keep the relationship between evidence versions, system changes, incidents, decisions and corrective actions so the record can be reconstructed rather than merely displayed.
Repair missing evidence where possible. Where it cannot be repaired, preserve the limitation and route it for appropriate review instead of converting absence into a favorable claim.
Choose the smallest operating tier that fits the portfolio today. Upgrade when system count, team size or governance scope actually requires it.
Keep a living system-level evidence record with obligations, gaps, versions and revalidation state.
START EVIDENCE PASSPORT →Coordinate evidence, owners, documentation, incidents and team compliance work in one governed workspace.
START COMPLIANCE WORKSPACE →Operate broader high-risk, GPAI, FRIA, post-market and material-change governance across a growing portfolio.
START GOVERNANCE PRO →Run institutional governance with expanded users, authority workflows, examiner rooms and portfolio reporting.
START INSTITUTION →Use the free classifier to establish the system, intended purpose, possible actor role, EU exposure and unresolved facts. When continuing evidence infrastructure is needed, paid access begins at $19 per month. Independent human readiness review remains a separate service.
No. The Regulation contains different assessment, documentation, monitoring and oversight mechanisms depending on the system, operator role and legal route. Audit readiness here means being able to produce and explain the evidence supporting the organization’s actual obligations and decisions.
The answer depends on applicability, but relevant material can include system identity and intended purpose, classification reasoning, risk records, technical documentation, data-governance evidence, logs, instructions, human-oversight records, testing, notices, conformity material, monitoring, incidents and corrective actions.
In this context, it is the traceable chronology connecting system state, evidence, accountable actors, decisions, changes and outcomes. It should make it possible to understand what was known, what changed and what evidence supported a position at a given time.
No. TA-14 can structure and preserve evidence, provenance, gaps, continuity and revalidation state. Acceptance, legal sufficiency and regulatory determinations belong to the relevant competent actors and context.
Yes. Missing evidence should be represented explicitly. An honest gap register is more useful than a nominally complete package that cannot support its claims.
TA-14 offers a bounded governed readiness review starting at $750 for one AI system. It is separate from subscription access and does not represent legal certification or regulatory approval.
TA-14 Exchange Activity
Live cumulative activity recorded across the public Exchange surface.
···
Visitors
Recorded public visitors
···
Page Views
Recorded Exchange views