Meet every EU AI Act obligation for every system.
The binding law behind the questions buyers ask. Hael classifies every system against Article 6 and Annex III, and produces the Annex IV technical file, the Article 27 FRIA, the Article 9 risk assessment and the Article 14 human-oversight plan — the substantive documents a regulator opens. Most organisations meet the Act's evidence expectations through an ISO/IEC 42001 management system; Hael runs both from the same record.
What the Act demands of high-risk AI.
The Act sorts AI systems into prohibited, high-risk, limited-risk and minimal-risk tiers. High-risk systems — including much AI used in credit, employment, insurance and essential services — carry the substantive load.
For a high-risk system the obligation is not to list the documents. It is to hold them, keep them current, and produce them on request.
Three things Hael does for the EU AI Act.
One record. The Act, alongside every other regime.
A system is registered once. Its obligations under the EU AI Act, ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF and GDPR are expressed against the same control set — mapped to the same record, evidenced by the same artefacts.
The Annex IV technical file, generated and held.
Each section of the Annex IV file is sourced to the record entry behind it. Where the record is silent, the section is held open — never inferred.
Govern this alongside everything else.
One system, one record, governed against every framework at the same time. Map an obligation once; satisfy it everywhere it recurs.
See where you stand on EU AI Act, free.
Answer a few questions and get an indicative view of what EU AI Act expects of your AI systems and where you stand today — no sign-up to see your result.