Public sample report
This page shows the depth and structure of a realistic first-pass report. It is anonymized and shared publicly so teams can evaluate output quality before purchasing.
Overall risk
Medium-High
Findings
6
Estimated effort
2-4 weeks
EU AI Act Article 14
Gap: No clear owner is named for override, escalation, and decision review in high-impact scenarios.
Recommended action: Assign accountable roles, define escalation thresholds, and document override workflows.
EU AI Act Article 9 / Annex IV
Gap: Hazards and mitigations are listed, but not linked to controls, owners, and review cadence.
Recommended action: Introduce a risk register with control IDs, owner mapping, and quarterly review checkpoints.
EU AI Act Article 72
Gap: Monitoring exists for runtime metrics but not for compliance regressions after model updates.
Recommended action: Add compliance drift checks to release pipelines and document incident response timelines.
EU AI Act Article 10 / GDPR Article 5
Gap: The policy describes lawful basis but not retention windows for training and inference artifacts.
Recommended action: Define retention schedules by data category and add deletion controls with audit logs.
EU AI Act Article 50
Gap: Public UI copy does not consistently indicate AI-generated outputs and user-facing limitations.
Recommended action: Standardize AI disclosure notices in product surfaces and add confidence/limitation messaging.
EU AI Act Annex IV
Gap: Architecture docs are available across repositories but not bundled into one audit-ready package.
Recommended action: Publish a single compliance dossier with versioned references to design and control documents.
Pro Monitoring demo
Pro Monitoring compares each snapshot with the previous scan so teams can spot new risks and resolved gaps immediately.
Measured GDPR score
71/100
+13 points
Changes since the previous scan
1
New
0
Worsened
2
Resolved
When findings are new or become more severe, the weekly summary is sent as a compliance alert.