What this badge actually means

If you arrived here from a badge on someone's website, you are asking the right question. A badge that nobody defines is worth nothing, and a compliance badge that nobody defines is worse than nothing, because it implies an assurance that may not exist.

So here is exactly what the Reglynn badge claims, and exactly what it does not.

What the badge does mean

• They completed a structured assessment. Up to 41 branching questions covering their role in the value chain, their risk tier, the Article 6(3) exemption, GPAI status under Article 53 and territorial scope.
• They received a dated written artefact. It names the articles that apply to them, with post-Omnibus deadlines, and a prioritised remediation list.
• They chose to say so publicly. Which is more than most companies in their position have done.
• The tier on the badge is the tier the assessment produced from their answers: minimal, limited, high, or simply assessed.

What the badge does not mean

The part most badge programmes leave out

We cannot stop someone copying the image without ever having bought a report. There is no cryptographic check, no registry lookup, no serial number. Anyone with a browser can save the file and paste it.

We could pretend otherwise. Most badge schemes do, by wrapping the same weakness in language that sounds like enforcement. We would rather say it plainly, because the alternative is exactly the kind of unearned assurance the EU AI Act exists to discourage, and we would be doing it on a page about the EU AI Act.

What this means for you as a reader: treat the badge as a signal worth one question, not as an answer. Which brings us to the useful part.

How to actually check

Ask them for the report. That is the real artefact. It is a few pages, it names their role and tier, it lists the articles that apply with dates, and it carries a "Report details" block naming the assessment date and how it was produced. A company that ran a genuine assessment will send it. A company that pasted an image will not.

Then ask us. Email hello@reglynn.eu with the company name and the date on the report. We can confirm whether Reglynn generated a report for that company on that date. We will not share the contents of anyone's report, and we will not disclose whether a company we have no record of ever ran an assessment, because "no record" and "no assessment" are not the same thing and we will not imply an accusation we cannot support.

You can see what a report looks like before asking for one: read the sample report.

If you are the one displaying the badge

Use it as issued. The wording says self-assessed rather than certified because that is what it is, and rewording it to imply certification would misrepresent both of us. Under Article 50 and general consumer protection law, an overstated compliance claim is a risk you are taking on yourself, not one we can carry for you.

Two practical notes. Re-run your assessment when your product changes materially or when the regulation does, and update the badge accordingly. And if your tier changes, change the badge; a stale tier is a wrong claim.

Why we published this page

Reglynn sells EU AI Act self-assessments, so we are in the business of telling people what their obligations are. It would be difficult to do that credibly while running a badge programme that quietly implied more than it delivered.

We also publish our own AI Act self-assessment, including the gaps we have not closed yet. Same reasoning: the open list is the part that proves the rest is real.