Your AI system works. It passes internal tests. Your team is confident. But can you prove — on paper, to a regulator — that it meets every requirement the EU AI Act sets out? That is what Article 11 demands. Not a product description. Not a slide deck. A comprehensive technical documentation that demonstrates compliance with every requirement in Chapter 2 of the AI Act — before your system reaches the market. Article 11 turns your compliance work into evidence. And Annex IV t

In our previous article, we explained what Article 11 requires — the 9 chapters of Annex IV, the SME track, and how the technical documentation connects to almost every other obligation in the AI Act. Now the question is: how do you actually build it? Theory is useful. But when you sit down to create your technical documentation, you need a concrete process — not just a list of requirements. In this article, we walk through the entire documentation process step by step, using

180 pages. 113 articles. And if you're building a High-Risk AI system, Article 9 might be the most important one you need to understand. Why? Because Article 9 doesn't ask you to tick a box once. It requires you to build and maintain a Risk Management System (RMS) — a continuous, adaptive process that spans the entire lifecycle of your AI system. If Article 50 is about transparency (telling people they're interacting with AI), Article 9 is about responsibility: systematicall

• Modern LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok) will be better than ever by 2026 — but they aren’t designed for compliance • The problem is no longer obvious errors, but errors that sound convincing • Without source references, an audit trail and project-specific context, LLM responses are unusable for the AI Regulation - Alternatives: Research official sources yourself, use specialised tools with RAG, or consult experts