An AI obligation needs more than a policy.
The business keeps the decisions, approvals and recorded disclosures behind its AI activity. An EU AI Act review can begin with that evidence, while the company and its advisers determine which obligations apply.
A $612 credit needs a person’s decision.
- Company rule
Approval required above $500.
- Credit held
The finance agent cannot proceed on its own.
- Maya Okafor approved
September 22, 2026 · 4:12 PM
Evidence of oversight for this action. Approval does not establish that the credit was applied.
Start with the system’s role and risk.
The EU AI Act takes a risk-based approach. Obligations depend on the AI system, its use, and whether your organization acts as a provider, deployer, or another regulated actor. Selected evidence mappings support that review; they do not determine which obligations apply.
Inspect the selected AI Act mappings.
These are selected references, not a complete account of the Act. Supporting evidence depends on the activity recorded, the capabilities in use and the review period.
Article 12
What the record contributesLinked action receipts keep a history of recorded activity.
What still needs reviewThe record covers captured activity. It does not establish complete logging for every AI system.
Article 14
What the record contributesHeld or denied actions and recorded human approvals provide evidence of oversight.
What still needs reviewActivity learned about afterward does not establish a check before the action.
Article 26
What the record contributesNamed agents and review packets connect activity to the people responsible.
What still needs reviewA packet is one part of a deployer’s obligations, not a determination that they have all been met.
Article 50
What the record contributesSupported AI-interaction and content-label disclosures can be recorded as receipts.
What still needs reviewDisclosure recording requires configuration. A receipt alone does not validate wording, delivery, or legal sufficiency.
Mapping version 2026.09.3. Selected references support a review; they do not establish compliance or certification. Packet availability is confirmed for your deployment.
A recorded disclosure still has limits.
Where disclosure recording is enabled on supported surfaces, a notice or content label can leave a receipt. The reviewer still needs to assess the wording, delivery and duty that applies.
- 01
Show the disclosure
Tell the recipient about the AI interaction or label AI-generated content where the requirement applies.
- 02
Record the event
A supported disclosure event can record the surface and subject reference without copying the conversation into the receipt.
- 03
Review the evidence
The disclosure receipt maps to Article 50 in the control catalog. Reviewers still assess the notice, delivery, and applicable duty.
Keep applicability with the people responsible for it.
Use the record alongside your legal and technical assessment of the AI system and its actual use.
Receipts & verification- 01
System classification, intended purpose, and organizational role
- 02
Applicable obligations and current implementation dates
- 03
Technical documentation, risk controls, and disclosure design
Questions about EU AI Act?
Does this make an AI system compliant with the Act?
No. Selected catalog mappings connect records to references in the Act. Legal applicability, risk classification, complete technical controls, and any required conformity assessment need a separate review.
Are Article 50 disclosures recorded everywhere?
No. Recording must be enabled and the interaction must pass through a supported disclosure surface. A label added elsewhere does not automatically become a recorded disclosure.
Can imported agent logs prove human oversight?
Imported activity can show what was observed. It cannot establish that an action was held or reviewed before it took effect. The packet keeps that distinction visible.
Go back to the source.
The authoritative framework and the scope of your review remain the reference points.