Turn an AI use case into its EU AI Act risk class, the regulations it triggers, the obligations, the architecture and the evidence you owe — in about two minutes.
Community-curated knowledge graph, peer-reviewed by experts across law, engineering and governance. Every change traceable →
Every regulation in the graph resolves into concrete technical components — through an article obligation, a control objective, a design pattern or an evidence artefact that a component must produce. Pick a regulation to see its technical surface, how each component is derived, and in which of the triggering use cases it is actually part of the required stack. The gap counts show where the graph reaches a component that no use case yet requires — those are open contribution targets, not settled answers. Open the full graph →
US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act plus contractual terms-of-service and EU database-right claims that constrain automated collection of marketplace and competitor data.
1 components0 articles / obligations1 triggering use casesopen in graph
Deterministic Policy Engine (OPA / Cedar)
100% of use cases
Policy-as-code decision point (PDP) with enforcement points (PEP) in front of every tool call: versioned policies in Git, microsecond evaluation, typed action schemas — authorization decided outside the model's reasoning space, never in the prompt.
named in regulationCFAA & Anti-Scraping Regimes → Deterministic Policy Engine (OPA / Cedar)collection policy enforcement