Most companies already use AI, but cannot clearly explain how it works, what data it uses or what risks it creates. HREVN helps you assess real use, identify high-risk cases and generate structured documentation with a verifiable record.
If your AI system is used in the European Union, the EU AI Act may apply even if your company is based outside Europe. HREVN helps companies, law firms and consultancies move from scattered information to structured AI compliance documentation grounded in the real use of the system.
If someone asked you tomorrow to justify one real use of AI, could you show it clearly?
Preliminary triage. Not legal advice and not a certification of compliance.
EU AI Act compliance is not only about having a policy. Many organisations already use AI systems but still cannot show clearly how those systems operate, what data they use, who reviews outputs or what evidence exists today.
The real problem is not only uncertainty about compliance. It is being unable to explain one concrete use of AI if a client, partner, auditor or regulator asks for it. That is why the first practical step is to assess real use, human oversight, user notices and the documentary gaps that still block a serious review.
The point of the review is not to repeat the policy. It is to get specific about where the system may create higher regulatory exposure, what transparency duties may apply and which decisions still lack a serious documentary basis.
In practice, that means separating high-risk AI systems from transparency-led cases and seeing when human oversight, user notice or traceability becomes the real issue.
Example: You use AI to summarise CVs, sort candidates or prepare interviews.
The uncomfortable question: Does it influence who gets interviewed, rank candidates, include human review and clearly inform the candidate?
Possible HREVN route: high-impact signals, human oversight, notices and documentary evidence.
Example: Your website answers customers automatically or qualifies leads with AI.
The uncomfortable question: Does the user know they are interacting with AI, can the case escalate to a human and are records kept?
Possible HREVN route: transparency, sensitive-response control and a traceability base.
Example: You use AI to mark work, evaluate students or recommend pathways.
The uncomfortable question: Does it affect grading or access, is the student informed and is there human review?
Possible HREVN route: sensitivity review, named responsibilities and process evidence.
Example: AI influences access, priority, eligibility, solvency or commercial conditions.
The uncomfortable question: What data is used, who supervises it and could you explain why a decision was taken?
Possible HREVN route: reinforced triage, professional review and stronger traceability.
Example: Your team uses ChatGPT, Copilot or Gemini with documents, emails, minutes or budgets.
The uncomfortable question: Which tools are used, what data goes in and what internal instructions exist?
Possible HREVN route: tool inventory, usage guidance and AI literacy records.
HREVN does not replace training or legal judgement. It structures preliminary triage so the company, law firm or consultant can move from generic policy language to reviewable AI compliance documentation grounded in actual system use.
| Training / AI policy | HREVN check |
|---|---|
| Explains what should be done | Checks what is actually being done |
| Delivers a policy | Checks whether declared evidence exists |
| Ends when the training ends | Can be applied again after 60/90 days |
| Does not always inspect real use | Surfaces tools, data, responsibilities and unresolved gaps |
| Does not create a follow-up file | Creates a Flash Report, Internal Dossier and Preliminary File |
| Stays at training level | Opens routes for professional review when needed |
A preliminary documentary chain to understand whether the policy is alive, what gaps remain and what should escalate to professional review if needed. The result is not just a score: it is a preliminary documentary base that shows what has been implemented, what is still missing and what needs professional escalation.
HREVN does not only generate AI compliance reports. It creates verifiable records that allow you to prove what was issued, when, and with which documented inputs.
A fast way to see whether the policy is alive or only archived.
A quick reading of signals, gaps and next steps.
A working base for blockers, evidence and documentary status.
A structured case document with scope, routes and clear limits.
Additional training, policy work, notices, human oversight or professional review when needed.
This check is the entry point to the HREVN workflow. It does not issue a pass/fail compliance answer. It helps locate signals, gaps and preliminary review routes. At the end, you can request an initial reading that you can use internally or share with counsel if relevant gaps appear.
We use this to understand whether you fit better with an initial check, a guided demo or a partner conversation.
The same workflow can support internal review, external advisory work or partner-led delivery. What changes is the operating model, not the need for serious, reviewable documentation.
The current MVP already generates a full documentary chain from a structured case: initial declaration, triage, dossier, file, manifest and checksums. The point here is to show that HREVN already works across three different operating patterns.
Regulatory depth: hiring, possible high-risk posture and the need for stronger documentary evidence.
Shows how HREVN opens a case with possible Annex III relevance and incomplete human review.
Commercial breadth: transparency, user notice, processed data, human escalation and operational control.
Shows that HREVN is not limited to HR and can open a real commercial chatbot case without forcing high-risk by default.
Advanced depth: creditworthiness scoring, sensitive economic decisions, possible high-risk posture and reinforced legal review.
Shows how HREVN opens a financial-scoring case with human oversight, traceability, bias testing, applicant notice and required legal review.
No. HREVN runs preliminary triage and organises an initial documentary base. Legal or compliance review remains a later human decision.
No. It also fits companies that are only starting to use AI and need to organise tools, data, responsibilities and evidence before they can defend a real case.
It generates a preliminary documentary chain: initial declaration, flash report, internal dossier and a structured review file.
Yes. The landing is also aimed at law firms, consultancies, academies and advisers that want to use HREVN as a documentary intake and triage layer.
It helps companies turn policy, tool lists, human oversight, notices and evidence into AI compliance documentation that is easier to review before legal escalation is needed.
HREVN runs a preliminary implementation triage. It does not replace legal audit, does not certify compliance and does not formally validate evidence. It organises information, surfaces gaps and creates a documentary base for professional review when needed.
We are not launching another training course. We are validating whether there is demand for a second layer: checking whether AI policy and training have turned into documented real-world use.