Role mapping comes before reassurance
A seller or buyer may need to understand whether it is acting as provider, deployer, distributor, importer, product manufacturer, or user of a general-purpose AI model. That role view shapes the questions procurement will ask and the evidence that should be prepared.
Risk view must be tied to intended use
AI risk is not only about the model. It depends on the intended purpose, deployment context, affected people, data involved, and sector. Procurement evidence should show how the organisation reached its initial risk view and where legal review may be needed.
Buyer-ready evidence should be reusable
The goal is not to rewrite a bespoke answer for every questionnaire. The goal is a maintained evidence pack that sales, security, product, and leadership teams can use consistently.
Practical evidence checklist
- Maintain an AI system register with intended purpose and owner.
- Map the likely EU AI Act role for each relevant system or feature.
- Record the first-pass risk view and why it was reached.
- Identify where legal counsel should confirm classification or obligations.
- Prepare transparency, oversight, data governance, monitoring, and incident evidence where relevant.
- Keep customer-facing summaries clear, factual, and free from unsupported compliance claims.
FAQ
Can a company outside the EU still receive AI Act questions?
Yes. If a company sells to European customers, deploys AI in Europe, or supplies AI-enabled products into European procurement processes, buyers may still ask for evidence.
What is the most common procurement gap?
The most common gap is not awareness of the AI Act. It is the absence of a current system inventory, data map, vendor evidence, and role/risk rationale that a buyer can review.
Should marketing say a product is AI Act compliant?
Only if the organisation has a defensible basis for that claim. In many cases, safer language is to describe the evidence maintained, the governance process followed, and where legal advice has been taken.