Decision Assurance Infrastructure
Summit Cognitive
§ Solutions — EU AI Act

The Act requires traceability. By design.

The EU AI Act is in force, and its high-risk obligations phase in on a published schedule. For high-risk AI systems, the Act does not merely encourage record-keeping — it requires that systems technically allow automatic logging over their lifetime, that providers retain those logs, and that operation remain traceable enough for post-market monitoring and regulatory scrutiny. That is a systems requirement, and it has to be designed in.

§ 01

The mandate, in plain language

Three obligations in the Act's high-risk chapter land directly on decision infrastructure — for providers building systems and deployers operating them.

Obligation 1

Record-keeping & logging

High-risk systems must be technically capable of automatically recording events over their lifetime — and providers must keep the logs under their control. A logging policy is not a logging capability.
Obligation 2

Traceability

Operation must be traceable: situations of use, inputs, and the functioning of the system reconstructable for conformity assessment, post-market monitoring, and incident reporting.
Obligation 3

Human oversight, evidenced

Oversight measures must exist and demonstrably operate. When a regulator asks whether a human could and did intervene, the answer needs a record, not an org chart.
§ 02

Receipts are the record-keeping mechanism

To state the claim honestly: the Act's obligations rest on providers and deployers, and conformity is assessed against your system as a whole — Summit aligns with and supports these obligations; it does not discharge them for you. What it does is make the record-keeping articles an engineering fact.

Mechanism

Automatic, tamper-evident logging→

Every machine-generated decision emits a signed receipt at decision time — evidence, policy evaluation, actor identity, timestamp. Logging that cannot be skipped, with integrity a market-surveillance authority could verify independently.
Mechanism

Traceability through replay→

Deterministic replay reconstructs any decision from its recorded inputs — bit-identical. When an incident triggers reporting obligations, the investigation starts from the actual event, reproduced, not from inference.
Mechanism

Oversight with a record→

Policy gates route consequential decisions to human review, and the review itself is receipted — who intervened, when, and what they approved or denied. Human oversight becomes demonstrable per decision.
Artifact

Lifecycle evidence for conformity→

The evidence exporter assembles receipt corpora into structured bundles — inputs for technical documentation, post-market monitoring, and the audit trail your conformity assessment will examine.

Organizations running ISO/IEC 42001 alongside the Act will find the two share one substrate: records. The same receipts serve both.

§ 03

How to start

Start with the system your classification analysis flags as high-risk — or the one you are still debating, where the cost of being wrong is highest.

  1. 01
    Scope one high-risk decision flow
    The AI system and the specific decisions the Act's obligations attach to — credit, employment, essential services, or wherever your analysis points.
  2. 02
    Instrument it for ten days
    Receipts on every decision, oversight gates live, replay verified. The logging and traceability obligations start being met in operation, not in roadmap.
  3. 03
    Brief legal and compliance with artifacts
    A receipt corpus and findings memo your counsel can put beside the Act's text — obligation by obligation, with evidence attached.

Meet the record-keeping articles in operation.

The 10-Day Decision Assurance Pilot instruments one high-risk decision flow and delivers the logging, traceability, and oversight evidence the Act expects your system to produce.

Start a PilotHow receipts work