Article26desk

Mid-market organizations deploying AI may need to coordinate system inventory, provider evidence, retained logs, classification analysis, human-oversight procedures and auditor requests with very small compliance teams. Article26desk proposes a deliberately narrow deployer-side workspace instead of a full governance suite. The supplied research reports official Article 26 log-retention duties, draft Annex III classification guidance and a material timeline correction: the relevant high-risk obligations are described as moving to December 2, 2027 rather than the earlier 2026 cliff. That softens urgency and must remain visible in product positioning.

Software cannot determine legal role or high-risk status from a short questionnaire. Provider documentation may be incomplete, system behavior can change after procurement, and deployers may not control all logs. Collected events are not proof of completeness or lawful retention. A generated procedure is not operational human oversight; a signature is not training or effectiveness; and an exported bundle is not auditor acceptance. Article 26, Article 14, Annex III, sector rules, employment law, privacy duties and contractual allocations can overlap. Legal interpretation and applicability require qualified authority.

Source authority, legal version, organization role, AI-system inventory record, intended-purpose assertion, provider evidence, classification response, analyst finding, legal determination, log event, collection acknowledgment, retention policy, oversight template, approved procedure, training evidence, sign-off, control test, exception, remediation, export and auditor response remain separate. The first release should support evidence assembly and accountable review, not declare compliance or exploit an outdated deadline.

A compliance, risk or legal-operations lead on a small mid-market team responsible for coordinating deployer evidence across several AI systems and external providers.