Not through negligence. No one procured ChatGPT — somebody opened it. The EU AI Act has required measures to support AI literacy for 608 days; it prescribes no record of them today. Whoever gets asked still has only what they wrote down.
KI Akte turns that into a file: you list your tools, confirm each classification yourself, and receive your dated documents — generated, not copied out. No consultancy, no project, no compliance department you don't have.
[RECORDED] 7 AI systems in use [PROPOSED] risk class per system [CONFIRMED] by management, 7 of 7 [GENERATED] file, 7 documents { "as_of": "2026-10-03", "systems": 7, "high_risk": 0, "regenerable": true }
Three questions. The first two decide whether the Regulation reaches you at all — a no there and you are finished here. The third decides the opposite: if you answer it with no, that is precisely the gap.
Start the pre-check — free, no account →
Do you use AI in the business?
ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, an AI feature inside software you already run, a chatbot on your site. Occasional use by one person counts.
Are you a deployer, not a provider?
You use other people's AI; you don't build and sell your own. Anyone placing high-risk AI on the market needs far more than this file.
Could you show today which systems are in the house and who was trained?
If yes, you already keep a file — you don't need us. If no, that gap is exactly the point.
Three times yes? Then Art. 4 AI Act applies to you (AI literacy — you must take measures so that staff using AI understand it sufficiently) since 2 February 2025. Unconditionally, for every deployer.
Art. 50 AI Act reaches you as a deployer in two cases only — and most companies fall into neither:
para. 3, if you operate emotion recognition or biometric categorisation — then you inform the people exposed to it. And
para. 4, if you publish deep fakes or AI-generated text on matters of public interest — then you disclose it. Both since 2 August 2026.
That a chatbot must identify itself (para. 1) and that AI content must be machine-readably marked (para. 2) is the provider's duty — not yours. This distinction decides whether you owe anything at all — and your file records it per system, with the rule branch that produced the classification.
What each month without a file costs. Not a fine — provability. A record you write today is dated today. Art. 4 AI Act has applied for 608 days; every further month is operation you can describe later but cannot evidence contemporaneously. You cannot back-date a record.
Who checks: the national market surveillance authorities. The Regulation provides for penalties (Art. 99 AI Act); which tier applies depends on the duty breached and the size of the company. We deliberately quote no figure — that is a legal assessment of your case, and not ours to make.
Every company maintains a record of processing activities because the GDPR demands it. For AI, the AI Act does not demand one today. It is still the same job: knowing what runs in the house — and being able to produce it when someone asks. The KI-Akte is your record for AI, kept voluntarily.
Like an external data protection officer — but for the file.
The responsibility stays with you. We keep the records.
That is a comparison, not a role: the AI Act knows no “AI officer”. We take on no duty the law assigns to you and make no decision that is yours — we keep the records with which you evidence them.
In German administrative practice an Akte is precisely this: the collection you maintain and produce on demand. You enter your AI tools into a guided form — name, vendor, purpose, who comes into contact with it. The full set follows.
01 AI system register basis 02 Risk class per system Art. 6 03 Transparency notices Art. 50 04 AI usage policy DE/EN governance 05 AI literacy record Art. 4 06 Logging record internal 07 Human oversight evidence internal 08 Operational monitoring high-risk 09 ISO 42001 gap analysis optional -- As of: 03.10.2026 -- 01-04 generated · 08 and 09 in progress -- 05-07: you attach your own evidence
This is not a disclaimer, it is how the product is built. KI Akte proposes a risk class per system and shows its reasoning — you confirm it. Your confirmation is held together with the rule branch that produced the proposal, and the date. That is the construction intended to keep this software rather than a reserved legal service under § 2 RDG. Whether the line holds is for the independent legal review to confirm — it is still outstanding.
System "Website chatbot" Contact "customers" [PROPOSED] limited risk Reasoning: no Annex III purpose · public contact → Art. 50 [?] Confirm this classification. [✓] confirmed · MD · 03.10.2026
What happens to what you enter. Your input is processed to generate your file and is not retained afterwards. It does not feed a training or knowledge system. The data processing agreement and the full processing details will be in place at release — until then we describe how it is built and make no contractual commitment here.
A one-off report describes a single day. Your AI landscape moves faster: a new tool, a changed policy, a training session. So the file is not written — it is generated, and it can be regenerated whenever you need it.
Change recorded: + "Notion AI" now in use + training, 4 people, 19.08.2026 [REGENERATED] 7 documents [AS OF] 03.10.2026 [PREVIOUS] 02.07.2026 (archived)
If a system looks like Annex III — recruitment, creditworthiness, biometrics, critical infrastructure — KI Akte does not quietly classify it as harmless to keep the flow moving. It stops and refers you to your lawyer.
System "CV pre-screening" Purpose "recruitment" [STOP] possible Annex III purpose This system is not classified automatically. We do not guess here. [NEXT] with your legal counsel [FILE] other 6 systems unaffected
There are tools for this problem. They are simply not built for you.
Continuous-scan compliance platforms. In English, designed for AI providers, price on request, access via a demo call. For a twenty-person company that means, in practice: not built for you. They monitor continuously — you need something you can produce.
Free self-assessments. They tell you what you would have to do and generate nothing. You end up with a list of open points and still no evidence. That part we give you for free — the pre-check. What you pay for is what comes after it.
An opinion as at a cut-off date. It describes a single day, costs many times more, and ages the moment somebody installs a new tool. For an individual legal question it remains right — for a register that has to stay current it is the wrong instrument.
The constraint we impose on ourselves is not a feature: KI Akte does not render the legal verdict. Anyone who renders the individual legal conclusion leaves § 2 RDG behind. That limits what we may promise you — and it is why every classification in your file is yours and not ours.
This is normally where customer quotes go. We have none — KI Akte has not been sold yet, and invented evidence is not something we will publish. What exists is a file we generated for ourselves, from a dated snapshot of our own agent registry.
13 entries, register snapshot of 22 June 2026: 12 agents from that snapshot of our agent registry, plus one project. The file proposes a class for each entry and confirms none: 11 × transparency under Art. 50 AI Act, 1 × minimal, 1 × Annex III. AI we use beyond these entries is not in the file.
Same input, same answer. The classification is a fixed decision tree under the AI Act — Art. 5 → Annex III → Art. 50 → minimal — not a language model. There is exactly one implementation of it, shared by German and English — the language cannot reach the result at all. Across all 36 purpose-and-contact combinations: 15 halts. Each of the five Annex III purposes reaches the Annex III branch — asserted by a test that reads the list of purposes out of the questionnaire itself, so a sixth cannot fall through. You can show your lawyer which branch applied.
Three real customer files. Only then does the brand go public. Until then we say what we have — and what we don't. Nobody can sell you compliance. Evidence, yes.
So you can judge what you would be getting: what already runs today is marked as such. So is what comes with launch. We describe nothing as present that does not yet exist.
Why step 04 is the actual point. A spreadsheet you start today is silently out of date on 2 December 2026 — in 60 days — and nobody in the company notices. That is not a knowledge gap you close by reading harder: it needs someone watching on your behalf, continuously. That is the difference between a document you buy once and a file that stays true.
Steps 02 and 04 are not yet released. This description is not an offer within the meaning of § 145 BGB and deliberately names no price.
We have publicly committed to an independent legal review of the boundary to § 2 RDG, and will publish its outcome whatever it is. It is still outstanding. Until it lands, we do not sell publicly. The one exception is a founder cohort of at most three pilot customers, each agreed individually and by name. These customers confirm in writing, before buying, that the review is open — and know what happens if it comes back qualified: full refund, and the file stays with them.
There is deliberately no number here yet.
A price is a promise. We can make one once the legal review has concluded and it is settled what we are allowed to deliver — not merely because a number looks good on a page. If you would like to know sooner, write to us and we will tell you where we stand.
The offer will be addressed exclusively to businesses within the meaning of § 14 BGB. All prices are net; statutory VAT is added where it applies. For businesses established in another EU member state, the tax liability shifts to the recipient under § 3a(2) UStG (reverse charge). This page is not an offer within the meaning of § 145 BGB.
Legal review. A lawyer confirms the boundary to reserved legal services. Without it, no public sale. What speaks for the boundary today, said openly: the German Federal Court of Justice, judgment of 9 September 2021 – I ZR 113/20 (smartlaw) on a rule-based document generator · a fixed decision tree with no language model · and the halt at Annex III, Art. 5 and provider status, where we do not classify and produce no record. We publish the opinion when it lands — including if we do not like it.
Terms, liability, data processing. Contract, insurance and the DPA are in place before we sell publicly.
Three real files. The brand goes public only once it has shown on real cases that it holds.
One message, when KI Akte goes live. No marketing, nothing passed on.
Deliberately a mail link and not a form: until the data-processing agreement is in place we do not start a list with your address on it. Your message sits in our mailbox. If we reply, our support register records who was written to and with what subject — not the content. No marketing list and no waiting list is created from it.
Each page answers exactly one question — in the first paragraph, with the article the answer follows from. Not legal advice, and no assessment of an individual case.
For deployers without a high-risk system the AI Act currently prescribes nothing for the vendor contract — Art. 26 AI Act binds high-risk deployers only and, under Art. 113 AI Act, starts on 2 December 2027 (Annex III) and 2 August 2028 (Annex I). What applies instead.
Read the answer → RoleEmbedded unchanged: no, the Art. 50(1) AI Act duty falls on the provider — the German regulator says so too. Under your own trade mark it is unresolved, and we say why we will not decide it for you.
Read the answer →KI Akte is software, not legal advice. The product assembles evidence from your own, self-confirmed statements. It does not assess your individual case, does not declare conformity, and does not replace a legal review. You remain responsible for the substantive correctness of the classifications you confirm.
Preview. Not an offer within the meaning of § 145 BGB, no binding prices, no contract can be concluded. Statements about deadlines under Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 are given in good faith, without warranty.
What the pre-check asks · Legal status · Imprint · Privacy© 2026 KI Akte