Ailedger-PS

Law, accounting, consulting and advisory firms can adopt AI through sanctioned tools, individual subscriptions, embedded vendor features and client-specific systems. A central team may not know which use exists, what data enters it, who owns the decision or which evidence supports a regulatory classification. Ailedger-PS creates a reviewed register and remediation workflow without pretending discovery equals legal scope.

The source contains a material correction to the original urgency: a May 2026 political agreement reportedly deferred the relevant high-risk obligations into 2027 and changed the narrower transparency timing, with formal adoption still expected at the run date. Authoring occurs later, but the input contains no current primary confirmation. Every date, legal role, classification and obligation must be revalidated; no panic-buy claim survives.

Tool observation, identity match, use-case declaration, data-flow evidence, risk candidate, counsel interpretation, firm approval, control evidence, technical-documentation package, external review and regulator outcome remain separate. A signed file supports bounded integrity, not completeness, legal compliance or audit approval.

A risk, privacy, information-security, innovation or general-counsel leader at a professional-services firm governing AI use across client work and internal operations.