Understand your AI Act obligations.
Prove compliance.
Keep it aligned as AI evolves.

A practical compliance platform for companies deploying AI in the EU and the consultants who support them. Built around real deployments, not abstract models.

Join 300+ professionals already exploring AI Act compliance with Aigolex

The real AI Act problem

Companies don't know if they are AI providers, deployers, or both.

Obligations depend on how AI is used, not on the model itself.

Documentation becomes outdated as soon as systems or vendors change.

Audits, enterprise customers, and boards expect immediate answers.

AI Act compliance is not a one-time exercise.
It's an operational problem.

Compliance attaches to deployments, not to AI models

That's why the platform mirrors the structure of the AI Act itself

Company

the legal entity ultimately responsible for compliance

Workspaces

distinct operational perimeters where AI is developed, tested, or used

AI assets

the underlying AI systems or models, independent from any single feature

Deployments

how those AI assets are actually used in practice, by whom, and for what purpose

Under the AI Act, obligations, risk classification, and roles attach to deployments not to AI models in isolation. This ensures compliance decisions reflect real-world AI use, not theoretical system descriptions.

Scope

Define where AI exists, how it's used, and who is responsible.

•Maps AI usage across companies and workspaces
•Identifies AI assets and their concrete deployments
•Determines your role under the AI Act (provider, deployer, or both)

Misclassifying your role means misapplying every obligation that follows.

Obligations

Know exactly what the AI Act requires, per deployment.

•Assigns regulatory requirements at the deployment level
•Based on role, risk classification, and usage context
•Generates clear, trackable checklists
•Separates applicable obligations from irrelevant ones

The AI Act is obligation-driven. Guessing is not a strategy.

Evidence

Always-ready documentation to prove compliance.

•Centralizes compliance documentation per workspace and deployment
•Includes system descriptions and risk assessments
•Tracks human oversight measures and monitoring controls

Static documents fail the moment reality changes.

Continuity

Stay compliant as AI systems, vendors, and uses change.

•Monitors changes to AI assets, deployments, and operational perimeters
•Flags when obligations or risk levels must be updated
•Alerts when documentation needs to be refreshed

Most compliance failures happen after the first assessment.

AI Act compliance readiness assessment

Identify your AI Act obligations, classify risk exposure, and uncover compliance gaps — with a guided interactive assessment.

Built for teams that can't ignore regulation

EU-based or EU-operating

Active AI deployments

Exposure to audits

Legal & compliance leaders

Risk & trust teams

Engineering leaders accountable for AI systems

Built by people who've done this before

Experience in legaltech and regulated environments

Built with legal and technical teams

Not Big-4 complexity

Prepare now. Don't scramble later.

Compliance

What criteria determines if a company is a 'provider'?

Aigolex Team2 January 2026

Under the EU AI Act, a company (or any natural or legal person, public authority, or agency) is primarily defined as a provider if it meets the following core criteria:

•It develops an AI system or a general-purpose AI model, or it has an AI system or model developed for it.
•It places that system or model on the market or puts it into service under its own name or trademark.
•This applies regardless of whether the system is provided for payment or free of charge.

When other entities become "providers"

The Act also recognizes that roles can shift along the AI value chain. A company that initially acts as a distributor, importer, deployer, or other third party will be legally considered a provider of a high-risk AI system — and must assume all provider obligations — if it does any of the following:

•Rebranding: It puts its own name or trademark on a high-risk AI system that has already been placed on the market or put into service.
•Substantial modification: It makes a substantial modification to an existing high-risk AI system in a way that it remains classified as a high-risk system.
•Changing the intended purpose: It modifies the intended purpose of an AI system (including a general-purpose AI system) that was not originally classified as high-risk, in such a way that the modification turns it into a high-risk AI system.

Product manufacturers

Additionally, if a high-risk AI system functions as a safety component for a regulated product (such as machinery or medical devices), the product manufacturer is legally considered the "provider" of the AI system if the system is placed on the market or put into service under the manufacturer's name or trademark alongside the product.

Understand your AI Act obligations.Prove compliance.Keep it aligned as AI evolves.