Articles 11, 12 and 13 ask for technical documentation, automatic event recording and transparency to deployers. This page states plainly which of Company Brain's already-real capabilities relate to each requirement—it is not legal advice and does not certify compliance.
Requires technical documentation demonstrating how a high-risk AI system meets its requirements, kept up to date.
Every published skill carries its canonical document, confidence and freshness metadata, and a full evidence trail back to source material.
Requires high-risk AI systems to allow automatic recording of events over the system's lifetime, to support traceability.
Every governed action—publication, drift detection, review decision—is written to an append-only, hash-chained record that can be verified on demand.
Requires a system to be sufficiently transparent for deployers to interpret its output and use it appropriately, with instructions for use.
An Evidence Pack shows the source, owner, change event and impact behind a specific answer—the record a deployer needs to interpret whether it is still safe to rely on.
This page is general context, not a mapping tool or a legal opinion. Compliance readiness depends on your specific deployment, risk classification and legal counsel—Company Brain supports the record-keeping and traceability work these articles require, as one part of a wider compliance-readiness programme.
See the product argument →