Services / AI GOVERNANCE
(C03) · AI GOVERNANCE
We turn regulatory exposure (EU AI Act, ISO 42001, SOC 2, NIST AI RMF) into a coordinated control architecture. Where requirements overlap, controls and evidence can be mapped and reused. Where requirements differ, framework-specific obligations remain separately identified and managed. Not a policy binder filed and forgotten: an operating model that survives the first audit and the next model you ship.
Article 50 is live 2 August 2026. The Annex III deferral reads as headroom, not reprieve. A conformity framework takes twelve months to build. Your AI is already in production. The inventory, the evidence pack, the documentation: none of it exists yet.
How we work it
01
We build the AI system inventory more than half of organizations still don't have: every model and feature you operate, classified under Annex III where you're the provider and Article 26 where you deploy someone else's. You get a plain read on which systems carry real regulatory weight and which a regulator looks at first. This is step zero, and nothing defensible gets built without it.
02
We produce the deliverables enterprise buyers and notified bodies actually demand: Annex IV technical documentation, the Article 9 risk-management file, FRIA for credit, insurance, hiring, and biometric use cases. Where those five frameworks overlap, controls and evidence are mapped once and reused; where they differ, the framework-specific obligations stay separately identified and owned.
03
Article 9 risk management and post-market monitoring are continuous obligations, not a one-time engagement. We embed the ownership, controls, and review cadence that keep the evidence base live as the regulatory target moves and the Omnibus dates settle in the Official Journal. When the next questionnaire or auditor arrives, the answer is already assembled the way they expect to read it.
What's included
Regulatory exposure
We translate the EU AI Act from legalese into a short list of things that actually apply to your systems: what counts as high-risk, what doesn't, and what you have to be able to show before the deadlines land. No guesswork, no scramble at the eleventh hour.
Explore EU AI Act ReadinessActivities under this capability
What you get
01
With documented AI governance behind your SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001, the AI-specific questions buried in a questionnaire get answered from work already on the shelf, not assembled under deal pressure.
02
Finance, healthcare, and Fortune 1000 buyers stop treating your AI as a risk to investigate and start treating a defensible posture as a reason to sign. The single stalled questionnaire stops slipping your pipeline.
Fewer blocked deals
03
Board, investor, acquirer, regulator, enterprise buyer: when any of them asks where you stand on the EU AI Act, you have an answer on record rather than a folder you hope nobody opens. You hold a posture you can defend, covering the deployer obligations most firms don't even know already bind them.
On record
Engage
How starting works
Pick the assessment, or start with a short call if you want to pressure-test the fit first. No long intake form, no gatekeeping.
An honest read on exactly where you stand, fast. You get a written diagnostic and a prioritized plan, not a sales deck.
Keep going with us, or take the plan and run it yourself. Either way you leave with something you can act on Monday.
What’s in the room with you
A senior operator who owns your engagement end to end: no junior hand-off, no rotating cast.
A written diagnostic you can circulate internally and defend in front of a board.
A prioritized plan with the trade-offs made explicit, costed, and ready to execute.
No retainer to start. No automated drip sequence. A real person, not a bot, replies within one business day. And if we’re not the right fit, we’ll tell you who is.
Proof
“We went into the SOC 2 audit with zero surprises. The evidence library was exactly what the auditors needed.”
Anonymized. Representative engagement archetypes drawn from real mandates; client identities withheld.
Where to start.
The exposure
AI governance is one of five capabilities RAVENTRYX operates. The Article 50 transparency obligation is live from 2 August 2026; the Digital Omnibus deferral of Annex III to 2 December 2027 is provisional until it reaches the Official Journal. Article 26 binds deployers of third-party high-risk AI regardless of provider conformity, an exposure most US organizations do not know already applies to them.
How we work it
We inventory and classify every system you run, build the evidence base enterprise buyers and notified bodies actually demand, and embed the controls so the posture stays current as the regulatory target moves. The deliverable is execution (a defensible, audit-ready position), not a framework slide.
Coordinated architecture
Where the EU AI Act, ISO/IEC 42001, ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2, and NIST AI RMF overlap, controls and evidence are mapped once and reused, so the same inventory and risk file answer more than one review. Where they differ, the framework-specific obligations stay separately identified, owned, and maintained.
The deliverables
A populated AI system inventory, Annex IV technical documentation, an Article 9 risk-management file, FRIA templates, and an ISO 42001 management system structured for certification readiness, organized so the next security review compresses from weeks to days and the next questionnaire is answered from work already on the shelf.
Standards covered
EU AI Act (Annex III classification, Annex IV technical file, Article 9 risk management, Article 26 deployer obligations), ISO/IEC 42001, ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2 Type II, and NIST AI RMF, with overlapping requirements mapped into a shared evidence base and framework-specific obligations maintained separately as the standards and dates settle.
Start
The entry point is a scoped AI Readiness Assessment: where you stand against the frameworks that apply, what is in scope, and the fastest credible path to a defensible posture.
Article 50 transparency obligations remain live from 2 August 2026, and the deferral is provisional until published in the Official Journal. A conformity framework takes twelve or more months to build, so the credible position is to start now and treat the deferral as headroom, not reprieve.
No. Enterprise questionnaires now carry AI-specific questions on ISO 42001 controls, NIST AI RMF alignment, model bias, and Annex III classification. SOC 2 and ISO 27001 are table stakes; documented AI governance is the next level buyers are asking for.
A populated AI system inventory with Annex III classification, Annex IV technical documentation, an Article 9 risk-management file, and FRIA templates, structured so that where the EU AI Act, ISO 42001, ISO 27001, SOC 2, and NIST AI RMF overlap the same evidence is reused, and where they differ the obligations stay separately identified. Audit-ready evidence, not a strategy document.
An ISO/IEC 42001 management system aligned with relevant requirements is realistic to establish inside a single mandate: documented policies, named responsibilities, risk-management processes, operational controls, monitoring, and management review. Formal certification runs on its own schedule, set by the audit cycle of the body that performs it. We structure the system to support that review if the organization chooses to pursue certification; the certification decision rests solely with an independent accredited certification body.
The Annex IV technical file is the conformity documentation an external assessor expects for a high-risk AI system: system description, design choices, risk-management evidence, and monitoring. Providers of Annex III high-risk systems need it; deployers who configure third-party high-risk systems still need their own Article 26 evidence.
It can. The Act reaches AI placed on the EU market or whose output is used in the EU, and Article 26 deployer obligations bind organizations deploying high-risk AI in scope regardless of headquarters. If EU exposure is becoming a board-level question, a documented position is the defensible one.
Regulatory information only. The frameworks, timelines, and standards referenced here reflect our reading of the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) and related instruments (including GPAI / Article 53 and the Digital Omnibus deferral) as of the review date below. Regulatory guidance and implementation timelines continue to evolve and may change. Nothing here is legal advice, and reading it does not create an advisory relationship. For guidance specific to your organization, consult qualified legal or compliance counsel. Last reviewed: July 28, 2026.
