Reglynn sells EU AI Act self-assessments. Reglynn is also an AI system under the EU AI Act.
It seemed indefensible to sell one without publishing the other. So this is our own assessment, run through the same four-step logic the product uses on customers, with the awkward parts left in.
The same caveat we put on every report applies here. This is a structured self-assessment, not legal advice and not a certification. We are not a notified body. Where we are uncertain, we say so rather than rounding down.
The summary
| Question | Our answer |
|---|---|
| Is Reglynn an AI system? (Art 3(1)) | Yes. It performs inference to generate reports and recommendations. |
| Our role | Provider of Reglynn. Deployer of Anthropic's Claude. |
| GPAI provider under Art 53? | No. API access and prompting only. No fine-tuning, no weight modification. |
| Prohibited practice? (Art 5) | No. No biometrics, no social scoring, no emotion recognition. |
| Annex III high-risk area? | No. Reasoning below. |
| Art 50 transparency | Yes — this is our obligation set. |
| Art 4 AI literacy | Yes, applies. Record below. |
| Art 22 authorised representative | Not required. Established in the EU (Poland). |
| Risk tier | Limited risk. |
Why we are not high-risk
Annex III attaches to systems that make or materially influence decisions about natural persons — employment, education, credit and essential services, law enforcement, migration, justice, biometrics, critical infrastructure.
Reglynn assesses a company's AI system. Its subject is a legal person's software, not a human being. It does not profile individuals, score them, or gate anyone's access to anything. Our customer is a business; the output describes their product.
The nearest limb is Annex III(8), covering AI used in the administration of justice and democratic processes. It is written for judicial authorities interpreting facts and law. We are not a judicial authority, we do not supply one, and our output is explicitly a self-assessment that tells the reader to verify with a qualified advisor. We are confident this does not reach us. We flag it because it is the closest thing to a boundary in our position, and we would rather name it than have you find it.
A commitment, because classification can drift. Reglynn will not assess natural persons. No CV screening, no individual competence scoring, no product where a human being is the subject of the assessment. That is a product boundary, not just a current fact — if we ever crossed it, our classification would change completely, and we would rather rule it out than manage it.
What we do about Article 50
Limited risk means the obligation is disclosure. Here is every place AI is involved and what we say about it.
| Where | What we disclose |
|---|---|
| Our chat assistant | Introduces itself as an AI assistant before the conversation starts, and will always confirm it is an AI if asked. Art 50(1). |
| Your report | Carries a "how it was made" block stating it was generated by an AI system from your answers, and reviewed before delivery. |
| The assessment form | Tells you before the first question that your answers are analysed by an AI system. |
| The homepage & pricing | States plainly that the report is AI-generated, before you pay. |
| These content pages | Written with AI assistance and reviewed by a person who holds editorial responsibility for publication — the condition in Art 50(4). |
| Terms & privacy policy | Name Anthropic's Claude as the model behind the reports, and confirm your answers are never used to train AI models. |
On synthetic content marking
Article 50(2) places the machine-readable marking duty on the provider of the generative system — Anthropic, for Claude's output — not on us as a downstream deployer. We are not required to watermark your report. We disclose its origin in the document anyway, because a report that arrives in an enterprise legal team's inbox should say what produced it.
On imagery
We do not publish AI-generated images of real people, places or events. Our visuals are abstract brand graphics. If that ever changes, we will label them under Article 50(4).
Article 4 — AI literacy record
Reglynn AI literacy record. Veronika Sopova — sole operator; provider of Reglynn, deployer of Anthropic's Claude. Training: Umiejętności Jutra AI 3.0 (2026). Scope: what the report engine does, its failure modes, how to recognise a misclassification, and the limits of what the product may claim. Reviewed 3 August 2026. To be updated if anyone joins the company.
That is the whole obligation for a company of one. It is worth saying plainly, because Article 4 is widely treated as either terrifying or imaginary and it is neither: it is a dated record of who knows what.
What we get wrong, and the limits of this
A self-assessment that only lists strengths is marketing. Ours has real limits:
- Classification at the boundary is the hard part, and we do not claim to have it perfect. The failure mode we work hardest against is over-classification — telling a company it is high-risk when Article 6(3) would exempt it. The report engine runs role, then GPAI, then the 6(3) exemption, then establishment, in that order, specifically because assigning someone else's duties to a deployer is what makes these tools useless.
- The report reflects your answers. Inaccurate input produces an inaccurate report. No amount of model quality fixes that.
- We are not a notified body and cannot certify anything. Our badge says "self-assessed" for that reason, and it always will.
- The regulation moves. Your report is stamped with the date and regulation version it was generated against. That stamp exists because we expect it to matter.
Why publish this at all
Three reasons, and only one of them is compliance.
The first is that it is the obligation. Article 50 asks for disclosure where AI is involved, and a single page collecting all of it is a better answer than six scattered mentions.
The second is that our own sample report tells customers to publish a user-facing AI disclosure rather than bury it in a privacy policy. Doing the opposite ourselves would be indefensible, and we would deserve to be called on it.
The third is simpler. If you are deciding whether to trust a €59 report about your own AI Act position, the most useful thing we can show you is our reasoning applied to ourselves — including the part where we flag the one limb of Annex III that sits near us. You can judge the quality of the thinking before you pay for it.
If you think we have got any of this wrong, we would genuinely like to know: hello@reglynn.eu. Being publicly corrected on our own assessment would be embarrassing and useful, in that order.
Now run it on yours
The same four-step logic — role, GPAI, risk tier, establishment — applied to your product. Free scan takes two minutes.
Start the free scanNo card, no account. Full gap report from €59. See a real report first.
Self-assessment, not legal advice. This page and the Reglynn report are a structured self-assessment based on the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689, as amended by the June 2026 Omnibus). They indicate where you likely stand and what to verify with a qualified advisor. Reglynn is not a notified body and issues no certification.
How this was made. Reglynn reports are generated by an AI system and reviewed before delivery. Reglynn is a Limited Risk AI system under Article 50; we disclose AI involvement wherever it occurs, including in our chat assistant. Our own self-assessment.