TA-14 · GOVERNED WORLD 05

CHECK YOUR
EU AI ACT POSITION

Fourteen questions. No credit card. No compliance claim. The purpose is to identify the evidence and obligation pathways worth examining before you spend money.

0 / 14 ANSWERED

Does this AI system or service reach the EU market or people in the EU?

EU AI Act obligations can apply based on market placement, deployment, affected persons, or outputs used in the Union.

Do you develop, place on the market, or put the AI system into service under your name or trademark?

This can indicate a provider role or a need for provider-role analysis.

Do you use an AI system under your authority in a professional or organizational context?

This can indicate deployer obligations even when another company built the system.

Does the system interact directly with natural persons?

This may create Article 50 transparency questions depending on the system and context.

Does it generate or manipulate text, audio, images, or video?

Synthetic-content marking and disclosure pathways may need to be evaluated.

Is it used in employment, worker management, recruitment, evaluation, or access to work?

Certain employment-related uses can fall into high-risk categories depending on the facts.

Is it used in education, admissions, assessment, or access to educational opportunities?

Certain education-related uses can fall into high-risk categories.

Is it used for creditworthiness, insurance risk, eligibility, or similarly consequential financial decisions?

Certain financial or eligibility uses may trigger heightened requirements.

Is it used in essential private or public services, justice, migration, critical infrastructure, or public authority functions?

These contexts can materially change the risk and obligation picture.

Does it use biometrics, emotion recognition, biometric categorization, or remote biometric identification?

Biometric use can involve prohibited-practice, high-risk, and transparency questions.

Is the AI system a safety component of a regulated product or embedded in a regulated product?

Product-safety integration can affect high-risk timing and conformity pathways.

Do you provide or materially modify a general-purpose AI model?

GPAI providers have a distinct obligations pathway.

Have the model, provider, purpose, workflow, authority, affected population, or integration changed recently?

Material change can weaken reliance on earlier evidence and trigger revalidation.

Could you produce current evidence for the controls you believe are operating today?

Policies and intentions are not the same as contemporaneous evidence that a control actually operated.

FREE SCREEN · INFORMATIONAL GOVERNANCE ROUTING

Ready to see the pathways your answers surfaced?

This screen does not determine legal compliance, high-risk classification, or conformity status. It identifies issues that may justify evidence mapping, qualified legal analysis, or further review.