EU AI Act compliance software should help your organization maintain a current system-level governance record—not merely give you a list of articles to read. The practical value is knowing what applies, what evidence supports the position, what is missing, what changed and what must be revalidated.
The EU already provides authoritative regulatory information and official support resources. Paid software should therefore earn its value by helping organizations operate and preserve their own system, evidence, obligation and change state over time.
Start with the actual system, role, use case and evidence boundary. The same regulation can produce different obligations for different actors and systems.
A useful platform should preserve system identity, intended purpose, version, role, EU exposure, dependencies and scope before mapping obligations. If the system boundary is wrong, everything downstream can be wrong.
A checklist tells you what to think about. A governance platform should connect each obligation to the evidence, owner, version, limitation, review state and unresolved gap that supports it.
AI systems, models, vendors, deployment contexts and legal-source states move. The platform should expose material change and question whether prior classification or evidence can still be relied upon.
Governance evidence should survive handoffs, audits, customer diligence and regulatory review. The record should show what was known, what supported the determination, what changed and what was revalidated.
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.
Start with one real AI system. Establish intended purpose, possible actor role, EU exposure, risk route and unresolved facts before deciding how much governance capacity you need.
Preserve system identity, versions, obligations, evidence, gaps, owners and limitations in one governed record rather than recreating the picture across spreadsheets and folders.
See what is supported, conditional, stale, missing, under review or awaiting revalidation. The platform should make uncertainty visible instead of smoothing it away.
Where legal judgment, independent review or a bounded readiness assessment is needed, route the system into a separately governed human review rather than pretending software can certify the outcome.
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.
At minimum, it should help identify AI systems, classify role and risk routes, map obligations, preserve evidence, show gaps, track versions and material changes, and support revalidation. A static checklist is useful for orientation but not enough for continuing governance.
It should not make that claim casually. EU AI Act compliance depends on facts, legal interpretation, technical evidence, organizational controls and sometimes third-party or authority processes. Software can structure evidence and support decisions without replacing every legal or conformity judgment.
You can, but the governance burden rises quickly when multiple systems, versions, owners, obligations, evidence objects and change events must remain connected. The problem is not file storage; it is preserving the relationship among the system, the obligation, the evidence and the decision over time.
Yes. Organizations can start with a free AI system classification pathway before deciding whether they need a persistent Evidence Passport, team workspace, Governance Pro, Institution access, or a separate readiness review.
Current plans begin at $19 per month for Evidence Passport, with larger workspace, governance and institutional tiers available for broader system portfolios and operating needs.
No. Subscription access provides governance infrastructure. Legal advice, certification, conformity assessment, regulatory approval and formal TA-14 review findings remain separate matters unless expressly included in a written scope.
TA-14 Exchange Activity
Live cumulative activity recorded across the public Exchange surface.
···
Visitors
Recorded public visitors
···
Page Views
Recorded Exchange views