EU AI Act Technical Documentation Template

Last reviewed: 2026-06-23

Short answer: Technical documentation is the evidence layer that explains system purpose, operation, data, controls, oversight, logging, changes, and gaps.

Who Should Use This Template

Teams building or operating AI features for customers.
Teams using AI in sensitive workflows.
Teams preparing for legal, compliance, customer, or investor review.

Technical Documentation Structure

Section	What to include	Evidence examples
System overview	Name, owner, version, purpose, users, deployment status.	Product spec, architecture note, owner list.
Intended purpose	What the system is designed to do and not do.	User story, approved use policy.
Role analysis	Provider, deployer, or other role questions.	Role checklist, vendor contract, branding notes.
Risk screening	Prohibited, high-risk, transparency, or lower-risk signals.	Risk questionnaire, use-case map.
Data inputs	Prompts, files, logs, training or fine-tuning data if any.	Data inventory, retention policy, DPIA notes.
Vendor details	Model, vendor, API, version, vendor evidence.	DPA, model card, security docs.
Human oversight	Review, override, escalation, approval process.	SOP, audit log, training docs.
Transparency	AI disclosure or synthetic-content label.	UI copy, privacy notice, consent text.

Minimum Evidence Packet

AI system inventory.
Intended purpose statement.
Role checklist.
Risk screening questionnaire.
Data inventory.
Vendor documentation folder.
Human oversight description.
User-facing AI disclosure.
Privacy and retention notes.
Issue escalation owner.

Example Intended Purpose Statement

The system drafts suggested support replies for customer support agents. It uses the current ticket text, prior help center content, and configured brand rules. The output is a draft only. A human support agent must review and send the final response. The system is not intended to make eligibility, employment, credit, legal, medical, or public-service decisions.

Common Documentation Gaps

Gap	Why it matters
"We use AI" but no named system	You cannot assess a category without a system boundary.
No owner	Evidence collection stalls.
No version history	Changes cannot be reviewed.
No data inventory	Privacy and model-risk questions remain open.
No human oversight policy	Review claims are hard to prove.
No UI disclosure	Transparency obligations may be missed.
No vendor folder	Third-party evidence is scattered.

FAQ

Is this template only for high-risk AI systems?

No. It is a readiness evidence structure that can help many AI teams organize system facts before review.

Can we use this for a third-party AI tool?

Yes. Include vendor documentation, DPA or terms, model details, data flow, and how your team uses outputs.

Should engineering or legal own this?

Product and engineering usually own system facts; legal, privacy, security, or compliance can review the evidence and open questions.

Check your technical documentation gaps

Use the existing ActCheck assessment flow from the homepage.

ActCheck provides informational self-assessment and evidence-readiness support. It does not provide legal advice, legal review, compliance certification, lawyer services, or a guarantee of compliance.