Service · Powered by CoreSyn

Technical AI Act Model Audit Support

We provide technical evidence that can support AI governance and AI Act readiness discussions — risk management, documentation, monitoring and robustness, prepared for review.

The problem

High-risk AI systems need technical evidence behind their documentation. We help teams assemble that evidence — robustness, bias, monitoring and human-oversight support — so governance and AI Act readiness conversations rest on real testing, not a slide.

What we validate

  • Risk management evidence
  • Technical documentation support
  • Data governance evidence
  • Monitoring and post-market monitoring support
  • Robustness and bias / fairness
  • Human-oversight support

What you receive

  • A technical evidence pack
  • A Proof Score and verdict
  • Documentation aligned to governance needs
  • Recommendations for gaps

Who it's for

Method, in brief

One principle: before trusting a system, we try to break it — in a controlled, documented way. We work across context, data, performance, calibration, robustness, bias, drift, fragility, overfitting and operational risk, then summarize a Proof Score and recommendations.

Pricing

Scoped per system; typically a Model Assurance Report (from €2,500) plus documentation support.

Note. We provide technical evidence to support AI governance and AI Act readiness discussions. We are not a notified body, we do not certify AI Act conformity and we do not guarantee regulatory compliance. This is not legal advice.

Related: Model Risk Management AI · Independent Model Validation · Methodology · Pricing · Sample report · Contact

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Do you certify AI Act compliance?

No. We are not a notified body and do not certify AI Act conformity. We provide technical evidence that can support readiness discussions.

What technical evidence can you provide?

Robustness, bias and fairness, monitoring and human-oversight support, plus documentation aligned to governance needs.

Should legal counsel also review the system?

Yes. Regulatory interpretation should be handled by qualified legal counsel; our evidence supports that review.