Your Article 17 technical file, drafted and gap-checked, before the deadline reaches you.
The AI-Act Legal Conformity Pack walks your high-risk AI system against the EU AI Act article and Annex IV control set, drafts the Article 17 technical file from what you can evidence, and flags every control you cannot yet evidence as an explicit gap. You hand your counsel a draft and an honest gap list, not a blank Annex IV template and a deadline.
Get your technical file drafted See a sample checklist and section
THE PROBLEM
If you place a high-risk AI system on the EU market, then as of August 2, 2026 the Article 11 technical documentation and the Article 17 quality-management obligations apply, and they apply whether or not you have started. The technical file is not a form, it is the Annex IV set (system description, risk management, data governance, accuracy and resilience, human oversight, the QMS, the lifecycle log, the declaration of conformity), and most teams start it from a blank page under time pressure, which is exactly when a control gets quietly marked done because nobody wanted to be the one holding up the filing. The failure mode is not missing the deadline, it is a technical file that looks complete and falls apart the moment an authority reads it.
HOW IT WORKS
The pack does not certify you, and it does not replace your counsel, it does the assembly and the audit so your reviewer signs instead of drafts. It runs in one pass. First it walks your system against the article and Annex IV controls (Articles 9 through 19, plus 47 and 72) and produces a checklist, conformant where you have evidence, an explicit gap where you do not, with the missing evidence named. Then it drafts the Article 17 technical file section by section against the Annex IV map, carrying every gap forward as an open item rather than papering over it. Then it seals the whole run in a tamper-evident audit trail, so the pack itself is auditable and you can show when and how it was produced. Your system, your evidence, your sign-off, we draft and we audit.
WHAT YOU GET
- The compliance-audit checklist, one row per control across the high-risk-provider obligations, each row conformant, a named gap, or undeterminable (and undeterminable fails closed, it never reads as green), - the Article 17 technical file draft, the full Annex IV section set (general description, development process, risk management, monitoring and control, performance metrics, the quality management system, the change log, standards approach, and the declaration of conformity), drafted from your evidence with the gaps marked as open items, - the gap ledger, the honest short list of what you cannot yet evidence and what evidence would close it, - the sealed audit trail, a tamper-evident receipt that this pack was produced, for the documentation-retention obligation and for your own records.
A draft your counsel signs, not a template your team has to fill from nothing.
WHO IT'S FOR
Providers of high-risk AI systems with EU market exposure, first, then the RegTech platforms and outside counsel who assemble these files on behalf of providers. If your AI makes or supports a regulated decision and you owe a technical file, this is for you. If you have no high-risk classification and no EU exposure, you do not need it yet, and we will tell you that rather than sell you a pack you do not owe.
PRICING (the ladder)
We price the ladder, not a single number, and every number below is a hypothesis we validate with you, not a commitment. - Conformity pack, a fixed-price single-system pack, the checklist, the technical-file draft, the gap ledger, and the sealed trail for one declared high-risk system. - Portfolio, per system once the first pack proves the format, for teams with several systems to document. - Readiness program, a retained relationship, refreshed packs as your systems change and the technical file kept current against the consolidated text.
IP is licensed, never assigned. Any step that takes your money is gated and confirmed before it runs, nothing charges silently.
THE PROOF (dogfood)
We run this discipline on ourselves before we sell it. AYA is a provider of a high-risk-adjacent AI system, so the same checklist walks our own controls, the audit-trail requirement maps to the verification receipts we already write for every capability we ship, and the no-green-without-evidence rule is the same honesty gate our own claims pass through. The pack's own build left a receipt, the deliverable pattern was scored and all four atoms it composes plus the rulepack were verified on disk before this page was written. That is the same kind of evidence trail this product produces for you.
HONEST NOTE
We would rather under-promise. This pack has been built and structurally verified, the pattern composes, the atoms resolve, the rulepack encodes the article and Annex IV controls. What it has NOT done yet is run against a real client system and real evidence, that is the first live test once a system profile and read-only evidence are in hand, and we will say so plainly. Two things we will never pretend. This is a drafting and audit scaffold reviewed by qualified counsel, it is not legal advice, and AYA does not declare your conformity or affix a CE mark, you and your reviewer do. And the article and Annex IV mapping is an orientation aid that must be confirmed against the current consolidated text, not a substitute for reading it. Where you have evidence we draft from it, where you do not we flag the gap, we never manufacture a green check. That refusal to fake certainty is the whole point.
Get your technical file drafted
*This page is a specification. The capability it describes is not built yet, and nothing here is a claim that it runs today.*