Is your AI ready for
August 2?
If your AI touches EU residents, you're in scope. US headquarters doesn't change that. By August 2, 2026 at 00:00 CEST, your high-risk systems need a documented quality management system, a risk framework, audit-ready records, human oversight, and continuous monitoring. Miss any one of those, and non-compliance fines start at €15M or 3% of global turnover.
Three ways to engage, depending on who you are.
The August 2 deadline is the same for everyone. The starting point is not. Pick the page that matches your role and we will tell you the version of the story that fits.
The CRO Playbook
If you run risk at a bank, fintech, or insurer with AI in credit, lending, fraud, KYC, or trading.
- Five named Annex III use cases, broken down
- What your MRM file does not cover
- The 6–12 week path to defensible
Implementation Backbone
If your firm has signed AI Act advisory engagements and needs the technical platform to deliver them.
- White-label or named-partner structure
- You own the client; we own the engineering
- 30-minute partnership scoping call
The 2-Minute Brief
A scannable executive summary designed to be forwarded upward. Deadline, exposure, decision matrix, next step.
- Two minutes to read, one click to forward
- The decision in three options, plainly
- Print- and screenshot-friendly
If your AI touches any of these, you're in scope.
The EU AI Act applies extraterritorially, the same way GDPR does. If your AI decisions affect EU residents, the high-risk provisions apply to you. Where your company is incorporated is irrelevant.
Every AI Act requirement, already covered.
Your conformity assessor will ask one thing: show how this decision was governed. You'll need the policy node that authorized it, the reasoning trace behind it, and the rule version at the moment it fired. For every high-risk decision. Every time. Every artifact produced automatically, the moment the decision commits.
| EU AI Act Requirement | Navedas Capability |
|---|---|
| Quality Management SystemDocumented processes for AI system lifecycle management | Context Graph. Your policies, structured into enforceable versioned rules, each with a citation path regulators can follow. |
| Risk Management FrameworkOngoing identification, analysis, and mitigation of AI risks | Reasoning Ledger. Every decision is logged with its risk assessment and the policy citation that governed it. Immutable. |
| Technical DocumentationDetailed records of system design, capabilities, and limitations | Every verdict traces to a specific policy node. Documentation is produced as a byproduct of operation, not assembled afterwards. |
| Conformity AssessmentSelf-assessment or third-party audit proving compliance | Audit-ready from day one. Every decision is immutable, timestamped, and citable against your policy graph. |
| Human OversightMeaningful human control over AI decisions | Operator Console. Your team gets real-time visibility, override capability, and documented escalation paths for every high-risk decision. |
| Transparency & ExplainabilityClear disclosure of AI involvement and reasoning | No Citation, No Output. Every AI decision ships with the exact policy rule that authorized it. No citation, no action. |
| Record KeepingAutomatic logging of operations and decisions | The Reasoning Ledger is immutable, timestamped, and linked to the policy node that governed the decision. Exportable, queryable, regulator-ready. |
| Runtime Policy EnforcementStopping non-compliant actions before they reach the user | Decision Gate. Violations are blocked before the action commits. Not flagged after the customer saw them. |
Claude is the model. Navedas is the layer.
Anthropic's Claude handles the reasoning, the refusals, the tool use. The EU AI Act asks the questions Anthropic cannot answer for you. What is your policy? Where is the audit trail? Who exercised human oversight? Why did your AI decide this for this customer at this moment? Those answers live in your workflow. Not in Claude's training data.
- ◇ Constitutional AI safety and refusal patterns
- ◇ System prompts, tool use, agent orchestration
- ◇ Built-in citations on retrieval
- ◇ Prompt caching and conversation memory
- ◇ Anthropic's content policy
- ◆ Your policy nodes encoded in the Context Graph
- ◆ Decision Gate intercepts Claude's output before action commits
- ◆ Reasoning Ledger captures timestamp, citation, model version
- ◆ Operator Console for human oversight (Article 14)
- ◆ Customer-owned IP. The governance stack stays with you.
Same architectural pattern works with GPT, Gemini, Bedrock, or your own fine-tuned model. The Decision Gate sits between the model output and the customer action, regardless of which model wrote the output. Read the architectural argument on why vertical AI →
Assessment. Monitoring. Or let us run it.
Start with a paid Readiness Assessment so you know where you stand. Convert to ongoing monitoring to stay compliant. Or hand the whole governance layer to Navedas.
- Every AI system classified by risk level
- Gap analysis per high-risk system
- Compliance posture and fine exposure
- Prioritized remediation roadmap
- 30-minute executive briefing
- Runtime policy enforcement
- Immutable Reasoning Ledger
- Operator Console real-time dashboard
- Monthly compliance reports
- Automatic regulatory updates
- Fully managed operations
- Incident analysis & remediation
- Proactive policy updates
- Monthly executive briefings
- Conformity assessment preparation
Assessment tools report. Navedas prevents.
The EU AI Act created a scramble. Most "AI governance" platforms tell you what went wrong after the customer already saw it. Navedas is the runtime gate that stops the violation before it reaches the decision log.
| Capability | Navedas | Credo AI | MS Toolkit | Agent 365 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Runtime policy enforcement | Blocks before action | Reports after | Build it yourself | MS agents only |
| Human + AI governance, same engine | Yes, unified | AI only | AI only | AI only |
| Vendor-agnostic | Any framework, any vendor | Yes | Multi-framework | Microsoft stack |
| Immutable audit trail | Reasoning Ledger | Compliance reports | Logs you build | Activity logs |
| Deployment speed | One week (assessment) | Weeks to months | DIY timeline | Weeks |
| Managed service option | Yes | Enterprise tier | Open source only | No |
| EU AI Act mapping | Built-in | Built-in | Manual | Partial |
The exposure isn't theoretical.
The EU enforces. Meta: €1.3 billion under GDPR. Amazon: €887 million. The AI Act uses the same enforcement architecture, with larger maximum fines. Companies that waited until the last minute of GDPR spent 3–5x more on compliance than those who moved early. The same curve is setting up now.
Questions your general counsel is already asking.
* The final enforcement date is subject to EU Council ratification and may shift. We recommend planning as if August 2 holds.
--- days is enough. If you start now.
One week for the assessment. Two weeks for your team to review. That still leaves time to remediate before August 2. Every week you wait is a week you don't get back.