AI adoption can move faster than the practices needed to manage it responsibly. We work with your teams to establish clear responsibilities, proportionate controls and ongoing oversight, so your organisation can put AI to work with confidence and manage it as uses, systems and requirements evolve.
Make accountability practicalA shared understanding of who decides.
Built around your organisation
For businesses and public-sector organisations, we shape governance around the AI you build, buy or use, the decisions it supports and the people affected.
Governance with room to move
The right review. For the right use.
The level of review should reflect what AI will do and the consequences of getting it wrong. We work with your teams to define the checks, evidence and decision authority each situation needs.
An AI use caseDefined routeSpecialist reviewEscalate or stop
01A defined route+
Keep routine decisions moving.
When a proposed use fits agreed conditions, follow an established approval path. Make permitted use, required evidence and the accountable owner explicit, including when a change needs fresh review.
Keep work moving without losing ownership or traceability.
02Specialist review+
Bring the right expertise in.
A new purpose, sensitive data or a material change may need closer assessment. Bring the relevant specialists together to resolve the uncertainty and establish any additional controls before a decision is made.
An informed decision on whether to proceed and under what conditions.
03Escalate or stop+
Make the limit explicit.
If a concern cannot be resolved within the agreed authority, pause the proposed use and escalate to the accountable decision-maker. Record the decision, the reasons and any conditions for reconsidering it.
A clear decision to change the proposal, hold it or stop.
These are alternative review routes, not a sequence of stages or legal risk classifications. Record the decisions, owners and conditions in your AI system inventory, and revisit them as use and evidence change.
Oversight in the workflowA person with the evidence to act.
Responsible AI in practice
Human judgement. Part of the process.
People need a sound basis for deciding when to rely on AI and when to challenge it. We help your teams build ethical considerations and practical safeguards into how AI is selected, developed and used.
Validate the intended use.
Agree what evidence would make AI suitable for the intended use. Check performance in realistic conditions, including failures that could affect people or business outcomes.
Make limitations visible.
Explain what the system can support, where its evidence or performance is limited and what people need to check before relying on an output.
Keep oversight active.
Define what people monitor and give them the information, skills and authority to intervene. Use feedback and observed failures to decide when the system or its safeguards need reassessment.
The requirements depend on your organisation’s role, the system and its intended use. We help your teams translate that assessment into clear responsibilities, practical controls and evidence they can maintain.
01EU AI Act
Clarify your role and the requirements for each AI use, from prohibited practices and classification to transparency and AI literacy. Identify gaps and support preparation for conformity assessment where required.
02Data protection
Assess how personal data is used in your AI activities. Work with your privacy specialists on the relevant GDPR requirements and data protection impact assessments where required.
03Management & risk
Use frameworks suited to your organisation: ISO/IEC 42001 for AI management systems and the voluntary NIST AI Risk Management Framework for identifying, assessing and managing risks.
04Your sector
Assess which sector requirements and guidance apply to the intended use. In life sciences, this may include GxP quality practices, good machine learning practice (GMLP), software as a medical device (SaMD) pathways, electronic records (21 CFR Part 11) and the European Health Data Space (EHDS).
Alongside your specialists. Connected to the work.
Your legal, privacy, quality and security teams bring essential context. We work with them and draw on the Conceptive AI network of experts where specialist knowledge is needed.
For audit and inspection readiness, we assess how your controls are evidenced in practice, run mock inspections and support remediation. Your people build the capability to keep that evidence current as systems and responsibilities change.
A focused way to start
EU AI Act Gap Analysis.
See what stands between your AI ambition and responsible use.
As AI moves into more teams and decisions, it can be difficult to see where obligations are covered and where uncertainty remains. We assess the agreed systems and uses with your specialists, giving leaders a basis for deciding what can progress, what needs work and where to direct resources.
Your role and the relevant obligations for each assessed use, with the reasoning and open questions recorded.
02
Gaps that matter.
Missing controls or evidence, their consequences and which issues need attention before the next decision.
03
A plan people can own.
Prioritised actions, responsible owners and evidence needed to resolve gaps and support review.
We agree the scope, contributors, deliverables and success criteria before starting.
A look at the output
From “Can we?” to a clear next move.
See the decision brief, AI-use inventory and leadership priorities we prepare from the assessment. Each extract connects a question your team faces to findings, a recommendation and actions with clear owners.
EU AI Act Gap Analysis
Start with the question closest to yours.
What lands on your desk
“The pilot works. Can we roll it out?”
Business lead
“Have we assessed this use?”
Legal
“Who owns the decision?”
IT
A working pilot. An unresolved decision.
Conceptive AI / Decision briefIllustrative extract
Your rollout. A clear decision basis.
We assess the use with your specialists and bring the findings, recommendation and action plan into one decision brief.
Our recommendation
Define intervention authority before wider use.
Assessment finding
In this assessed high-risk use, a reviewer is appointed but their authority to override or stop the system is not documented.
Why it matters
A person can check the output without having the authority to act on a concern.
Action plan prepared
Business owner: approve who can intervene and when.
System owner: verify that intervention and escalation work.
Evidence for review: approved oversight instructions and a recorded test of the intervention route.
How the EU AI Act shapes this assessmentRelevant provisions, connected to the work we do for you.+
01
Role & use
Your role comes first.
The Act distinguishes providers, deployers and other operators. Intended use informs classification and the responsibilities to assess.
In your assessment
We establish your role and record the obligations and open questions for the proposed use.
These oversight provisions concern high-risk AI. We establish applicability before treating a finding as a legal gap, and distinguish practical safeguards from legal requirements.
What lands on your desk
“Which AI tools are our teams using?”
Operations
“Our list only covers what we bought.”
IT
“What guidance should we give people?”
People lead
AI is already at work. The picture is incomplete.
Conceptive AI / Assessed AI-use inventoryIllustrative extract
Your AI uses. One shared picture.
We consolidate the agreed uses, assess the available evidence and deliver an inventory that shows where your teams need to act.
Our recommendation
Resolve data questions before extending AI use.
Internal assistantUse & owner recorded
Purpose and business owner identified in the assessed scope.
Document draftingEvidence missing
Supplier handling of submitted information is unconfirmed.
Decision supportReassessment needed
Proposed use extends beyond the purpose in the current record.
Follow-up plan prepared
IT + privacy lead: confirm how submitted information is handled.
Business + legal leads: reassess the proposed expansion.
Team leads: communicate agreed limits on data and use.
How the EU AI Act shapes this assessmentRelevant provisions, connected to the work we do for you.+
01
Role & purpose
Understand each use.
The Act defines roles and intended purpose. A product name alone does not establish the responsibilities for every use.
In your assessment
Our inventory connects each agreed use to its purpose, owner, role assessment and evidence.
A changed purpose does not automatically make a system high-risk. Privacy and security questions are assessed alongside, and distinguished from, AI Act obligations.
What lands on your desk
“Where do we stand on AI?”
Executive sponsor
“Which gaps deserve attention first?”
Finance
“Who is taking them forward?”
Programme lead
Plenty of activity. No shared view of the priorities.
Conceptive AI / Leadership briefIllustrative extract
Your position. Ready to set priorities.
We prepare a leadership brief that separates what is established from what needs attention, with a prioritised plan for action.
Our recommendation
Address rollout blockers first, with owners for each action.
Position established
Assessed uses, owners and relevant obligations are mapped. Unresolved questions are recorded.
First priority
Clarify intervention authority and prepare the people overseeing the high-risk system before wider use.
Wider improvement
Adapt AI guidance and learning measures to the roles and uses identified in the assessment.
Leadership action plan prepared
Business owners: close the oversight gap before wider use.
People lead: prioritise oversight training and role-specific AI learning.
Next review: evidence of intervention authority, oversight preparation and progress against the remaining actions.
How the EU AI Act shapes this assessmentRelevant provisions, connected to the work we do for you.+
01
Assessment scope
A position with clear boundaries.
Roles and system classification determine which obligations need examination. Conclusions must relate to the systems and uses assessed.
In your assessment
Our leadership brief states the scope, assessed responsibilities and questions still open.
For deployers of high-risk AI systems, Article 26 addresses oversight authority, monitoring and record-keeping. We assess the duties relevant to your role.
In your assessment
We translate oversight findings into priorities, responsible roles and evidence for the next review.
Our priorities distinguish relevant legal obligations from recommended safeguards. The brief is an assessment and action plan for the agreed scope, not a compliance certification.
Illustrative extracts, not client findings. We tailor the assessment and action plan to your systems, roles and agreed scope. Implementation and further specialist work are agreed separately.
