Compliance — GDPR & Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

Where does your AI system sit in the AI Act ?

Describe your processing activity, declare your AI system: the tool returns the risk category, the rule applied and the article relied upon, then builds the applicable GDPR + AI Act questionnaire and a ranked action plan. Free, no account.

  • 100 % in your browser
  • 0 data transmitted
  • 33 control points
  • 21 classification rules
  • Excel export

Your data never leaves your browser.

There is no server behind this tool. The classification engine, the gap scoring and the Excel file are built inside the page, on your own machine. Nothing is sent, nothing is stored, no tracking cookie is added. Disconnect from the network after the page loads: the tool keeps working.

Describe the processing activity

The assessment covers a processing activity, not a piece of software. These answers determine which control points apply and how gaps are weighted.

Characteristics of the processing

Each characteristic adds mandatory control points or increases the severity of gaps.

Entirely fictitious sample data, to explore the tool.

The method

A rule base, not a model

The classification comes from a versioned, readable rule base, in the order imposed by the regulation itself. No language model is involved: the same declaration always yields the same result. The tool shows the rule applied, the article and the trace of triggered rules — the part you copy into your file.

The regulation's order of assessment

  1. Article 5 — prohibited practices: they prevail, no measure saves them.
  2. Article 6(1) + Annex I — safety component of a harmonised product.
  3. Article 6(2) + Annex III — high-risk areas, subject to Article 6(3).
  4. Article 50 — transparency obligations.
  5. Otherwise — minimal risk.

The Article 6(3) trap

The derogation that lifts an Annex III system out of the high-risk regime never applies where the system profiles natural persons. This is the most common classification mistake: the tool applies the exception and says so, rather than returning a milder category.

Ranked gaps

Every gap is weighted by the severity of the control point, then increased by context: special category data, large scale, vulnerable people, AI Act category. The score gives a P1, P2 or P3 priority, and the priority gives a target date. An action plan, not a list of complaints.

Texts and sources

This tool does not replace the legal texts: it points you back to them. Every control point cites its article.

Official texts

The French regulator

Going further with us

  • Our expertise What we do, and how we hand the skills over to your teams.
  • Discuss a supported audit A self-assessment sets the frame; an audit produces defensible findings, built with your teams and your evidence.
  • The other tutorials All our interactive tutorials, in the browser, no account needed.

For an organisation that wants to industrialise this

The same engine exists as a service and an API: classification and gap scoring callable from your own tools, deliverable exports, versioned reference sets, deployment on your own infrastructure. That is what lets you handle a portfolio of processing activities rather than one, and replay a classification when the reference set changes. Get in touch to discuss it.

Unsure about a classification?

A misclassified system means an entire regime of obligations is missing.

Discuss your case