Lexbeam Software

Classify AI System Under EU AI Act

Classify an AI system's risk level under the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689). Accepts a free-text description, a use_case, and/or structured signals (domain, biometric flags, synthetic content, etc.). Signals take precedence over text matching for deterministic classification. Returns risk classification, applicable Annex III category, relevant articles, provider/deployer determination, matched signals, and follow-up questions the agent should relay. Note: Art. 6(3) exceptions require documente

Check EU AI Act Implementation Deadlines

Returns key implementation milestones and deadlines for the EU AI Act with days remaining, a `next_milestone` shortcut, and a summary of the Digital Omnibus. The milestone timeline always reflects the operative law. Set `include_pending_omnibus: true` to also receive the structured Digital Omnibus pack (each item source-status labelled; its `status` and `enacted` fields carry the current legislative state). Use `only_upcoming: true` to drop past milestones.

Get Obligations by Role and Risk Level

Returns specific compliance obligations for providers or deployers based on AI system risk level.

EU AI Act FAQ

Search frequently asked questions about the EU AI Act and get best-match answers with article references. Covers classification, deadlines, roles, governance, documentation, risk assessment, penalties, GPAI systemic risk, FRIA, transparency, and sector-specific guidance.

Calculate EU AI Act Penalties

Calculates the maximum possible fine for an EU AI Act violation based on violation type, global annual turnover, SME status and SMC (small mid-cap) status. Implements the Art. 99 penalty framework including the SME/startup lower-of rule (Art. 99(6), tiers 99(3)-(5)) and the narrower SMC rule (Art. 99(6a), tiers 99(4)-(5) only; no SMC cap on Art. 5 fines and none under Art. 101). Returns a comparative block so the agent can show the SME reduction to the user.

Get EU AI Act Article Summary

Retrieve an operational summary of a specific article of the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689), plus a stable EUR-Lex URL to the canonical text. Supports a subset of the most-cited articles (Art. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9-17, 26, 27, 43, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 72, 73, 99, 100, 113). For articles outside this subset the tool returns the EUR-Lex base URL. The summary is not statutory text: follow the URL and verify the official provision before quoting it.

Check GPAI Model Systemic Risk Classification

Determine whether a general-purpose AI model qualifies as a GPAI model with systemic risk under Art. 51. This tool uses an adjudicated conservative boundary at or above 10^25 cumulative training FLOPs for the Art. 51(2) presumption. The Commission may also designate models with equivalent capabilities or impact under Art. 51(1)(b). Returns baseline GPAI obligations under Art. 53 plus systemic-risk-only obligations under Art. 55, and the Art. 52 notification duty.

Assess Art. 6(3) 'No Significant Risk' Exception

Walk through the Art. 6(3) exception for Annex III high-risk AI systems. An Annex III system is NOT high-risk only if the provider affirmatively assesses no significant risk to health, safety, or fundamental rights, AND the system falls under one of the four conditions: (a) narrow procedural task, (b) improves prior human activity, (c) detects patterns without replacing human assessment, (d) preparatory task. Set no_significant_risk_to_health_safety_fundamental_rights=true only when that thresho

Annex IV Technical Documentation Checklist

The nine titles and descriptions summarise Annex IV. `sub_items` are non-binding implementation prompts, are not verbatim Annex IV text, and do not create additional legal requirements. Under Article 11(1), SMEs, including start-ups, and SMCs may provide the Annex IV elements in a simplified manner only by using the Commission form referred to in that paragraph.

Assess an AI System Under the EU AI Act

Assess one normalized EU AI Act system profile against the pinned sealed corpus. Returns separate legal-classification, impact, and implementation-readiness blocks with field-level facts, decisive missing facts, complete finding provenance, warnings, and recommended atomic follow-up calls. Sparse inputs fail closed. Impact never changes legal classification, and classification never implies implementation readiness.