An AI system that processes personal data is simultaneously subject to Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 and Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Managing these in separate tools means managing the same system twice — and producing two records that an auditor must reconcile.
EAB connects EU AI Act and GDPR obligations at the system level. One registration. One evidence layer. One audit trail across both frameworks.
“When the same AI system appears in two separate compliance records, one of them is a copy. Copies drift — and at audit time, one of them will be wrong.”
In EAB, an AI system is registered once. That single registration is the anchor for both the EU AI Act governance chain and the GDPR processing activity record. When a processing activity is linked to an AI system, the relevant AI Act context — risk classification, actor role, data governance documentation, human oversight provisions — is immediately available in the GDPR workflow without re-entry.
Evidence works the same way. Training data documentation that satisfies Art. 10 of the EU AI Act and Art. 32 of the GDPR is collected once and referenced from both obligation records. An organisation does not maintain two versions of the same document in two separate systems — the document exists once and is linked where it applies.
At audit time, this means one record instead of two. An auditor who needs to assess both the EU AI Act classification and the GDPR processing basis for an AI system does not need to cross-reference documents from two tools. The connection is structural — already in the record, already attributed, already linked to the relevant articles in both regulations.
Each connection is structural — not a link in a document, but a relationship in the governance record.
A single AI system registration activates both the EU AI Act governance chain and the GDPR processing activity workflow. The system is not entered twice. Changes to the system profile are reflected in both frameworks automatically.
Training data governance documentation — origin, quality controls, bias assessments — satisfies requirements under both Art. 10 of the EU AI Act and Art. 32 of the GDPR. Collected once, referenced from both obligation records.
When a DPIA is initiated for a processing activity involving an AI system, the AI Act risk classification, human oversight provisions, and obligation profile are pre-loaded. The DPIA reflects the actual characteristics of the system — not a description produced independently for the assessment.
Transparency obligations under Art. 13 of the EU AI Act and information obligations under Art. 13 of the GDPR overlap significantly for AI systems that process personal data. EAB surfaces these overlaps and avoids duplication in the obligation set.
Evidence items are stored once and linked to every obligation they satisfy — across both EU AI Act and GDPR. A TOM profile satisfying Art. 32 GDPR may also satisfy human oversight documentation requirements under Art. 14 AI Act. The link is explicit in the record.
Decisions under both frameworks are in the same record. An auditor reviewing both the EU AI Act classification and the GDPR processing basis for an AI system works from one record — not two systems with incompatible audit logs.
Available as an add-on for Professional and Enterprise. One registration. One evidence layer. One audit trail across EU AI Act and GDPR.
EU-hosted · Anchored to CELEX 32024R1689
Tell us about your organization and what you’re looking to address. We’ll follow up with the relevant information.
