How it works

An employer having job applicants ranked by AI

Six links, one case: every value above is a separate object in the dataset shipping right now, with the identifier you can use to request it.

Praxikon does not explain that it produces evidence, it shows it. Below, one case runs through every layer of the platform with the output of the running engine. Nothing on this page is an illustration: every identifier, every date, every hash and every source line comes from the dataset being served right now.

From plain language to source and back, in seven steps

Step 1

The situation in plain language

An employer buys an AI tool that screens and ranks job applicants in the first selection round. The employer does not build the tool but uses it, which makes it a deployer in the words of the Regulation. A recruiter looks at the ranking, but in practice that ranking decides who gets invited.

That story enters the assessment as fifteen coded answers. Nothing else goes in: no name, no organisation, no document. Change one of these answers and the outcome changes, which is exactly why they are printed here.

The fifteen answers that enter the assessment

actor_role: deployer
object_type: ai_system
eu_nexus: offered_or_used_in_eu
article_5_signal: none_known
annex_iii_domain: employment
annex_iii_use_case: emp-4a
decision_influence: materially_influences
article_50_scenarios: none
article_50_market_date: not_relevant
direct_interaction_obvious: not_relevant
public_interest_editorial_control: not_relevant
fria_context: none
gpai_union_market: not_relevant
gpai_market_date: not_relevant
gpai_open_source_status: not_relevant

This field is called `assessment_input` in the manifest below and travels with the document. Anyone who disagrees with the outcome can disagree with this input.

What the coded use case means

annex_iii_domain: Employment and worker management
annex_iii_use_case: Recruitment and selectionAnnex III, point 4(a)Job ad targeting, CV screening, candidate scoring, interview analysis.

The mapping from the coded use case to the point in Annex III comes from the assessment layer. No object in the knowledge graph carries an Annex III point today, so that one step does not come across the public interface. We would rather say so than quietly count it in.

Step 2

The classification, with the rule trace underneath

The decision engine returns more than an outcome: it returns the rules the outcome rests on, which one was met, which was not, and why. That trace travels with every manifest call, so anyone who disagrees can point at the rule where they get off.

The coded outcome

high_risk_annex_iii

This system is high risk through the Annex III route. The intended purpose is on the list and the filter of Article 6(3) offers no way out here.

The rule trace

Rule	Outcome	Why
scope.eu-nexus	met	Your answer confirms a possible EU connection.
annex-iii.listed-purpose	met	The intended purpose must be linked to a specific use case in Annex III. Selecting only a sector or domain is not enough.
annex-iii.ai-system	met	This route classifies AI systems, not a standalone GPAI model.
annex-iii.article-6-3-filter	not metnot_met	Article 6(3) can only provide an outcome through a documented, strict assessment. Profiling keeps the system high-risk.

Open questions

The engine left no question open in this case.

What was not assessed here

The decision engine assesses a fixed, bounded set of obligation objects. Anything outside that set was not assessed, which is different from not applying. Which objects they were is listed below and in the manifest as `evaluated_obligation_ids`, so a reader can see the difference without having to take our word for it.

praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk
praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-27-fria
praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy
praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-50-transparency
praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai

Step 3

The obligations, with duty holder and stable identifier

The obligations below come out of these answers. Each carries an identifier that is never renamed and never reused, plus the version and the hash of the exact content this outcome rests on. Cite that identifier and you cite this object, years from now as well.

The duty holder is a separate field, and that is the sharpest edge of this case. On the Annex III obligation the duty rests on the provider; the employer is the party affected without being the addressee. Collapse those two and you hand the employer the work of its supplier, or the other way round.

Annex III: high-risk AI

praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk

Status in this assessment: appliesuncertainty_status: determined
Duty rests on: Provider of an AI systempraxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider
Affected without being the addressee: Deployerpraxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer
Owns the evidence: Provider of an AI systempraxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider
Applies from: 2 December 2027upcoming
Version and content hash: 1.0.0c0afd1789ed393ba3f9ce04205bd74b4831ff0fd58146108fdd8dd08d2f4f6c9

Official fact

The core rules in Chapter III, Sections 1 to 3, for systems under Article 6(2) and Annex III become applicable on 2 December 2027.

Amended Article 113, Article 6(2) and Annex III application date/official sourcepraxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

Read the full obligation Open the object in the explorer

Article 4: AI literacy

praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy

Status in this assessment: appliesuncertainty_status: determined
Duty rests on: Deployerpraxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer
Provider of an AI systempraxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider
Owns the evidence: Deployerpraxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer
Provider of an AI systempraxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider
Applies from: 2 February 2025applicable
Version and content hash: 2.0.07a9516670dfca5dd7dcc96ae019e5714f843e20235abd3e9d92b71eb42445ff1

Official fact

Since 27 July 2026, providers and deployers must take measures supporting the development of AI literacy. The provision does not require a guaranteed individual level.

Amendment of Article 4; entry into force 27 July 2026/official sourcepraxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

Read the full obligation Open the object in the explorer

The two edges where this goes wrong

These two obligations sit in the knowledge graph and do not come from the decision engine. They are here because an answer that drops or swaps them answers the wrong question.

Article 26: obligations of deployers of high-risk AI systems

praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-26-deployer-obligations

This is the employer duty of its own. The decision engine does not assess it, so it is not in the manifest. Not assessed is not the same as not applicable, and the platform pretends neither.

Duty rests on: Deployerpraxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer
Body governed by public lawpraxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body
Owns the evidence: Deployerpraxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer
Body governed by public lawpraxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body
Applies from: 2 December 2027upcoming
Version and content hash: 1.0.00269a6f883187fb177f26dc8563b035927e5d2ae021e35254c98fce04d637f0c

Read the full obligation Open the object in the explorer

Article 16: the twelve duties of a provider of a high-risk AI system

praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-16-provider-obligations

This is the supplier duty. It should not end up on the employer desk, however tempting it is to put everything on the buying party.

Duty rests on: Provider of an AI systempraxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider
Owns the evidence: Provider of an AI systempraxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider
Applies from: 2 December 2027upcoming
Version and content hash: 1.0.069744054b2105841ae2447d2d83216af48b1ea7983b7bbeeb9330a5d40469275

Read the full obligation Open the object in the explorer

Assessed, and not applicable here

These obligations were assessed by the engine and did not trigger on these answers. That is an outcome too, not silence.

Article 27: FRIApraxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-27-fria
Article 50: transparencypraxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-50-transparency
Article 53: GPAI model providerspraxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai

Step 4

The evidence that belongs with it

An obligation without an evidence record is an intention. The graph hangs the resulting actions and the record you have to be able to show off every obligation, each with its own identifier.

What has to be done

Classify the use case and document the outcome
Assess Article 5, Article 6 and Annex III in that order and document purpose, context and any Article 6(3) exception.
praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:annex-iii-classify
Belongs to praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk
Open the object in the explorer
Take role- and context-specific AI literacy measures
Determine for each role, system and context which combination of instruction, guidance, practice or training is appropriate.
praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-4-measures
Belongs to praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy
Open the object in the explorer

What you have to be able to show

Article 6 and Annex III classification record
Traceable rationale covering intended purpose, Annex III category, Article 6(3) assessment and registration decision.
praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:annex-iii-classification-record
Belongs to praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk
Open the object in the explorer
AI literacy measures record
Versioned record of roles, context, measures, participation or instruction and review moments.
praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-4-measures-record
Belongs to praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy
Open the object in the explorer

Step 5

The manifest: the same assessment as a portable object

Everything above fits in one document you can archive, hand over or have checked. That document is printed below in full, exactly as `POST /api/v1/manifest` returns it.

That endpoint is the only route to this document today. There is no button on the assessment that fetches it for you, and we would rather say so than have you look for it.

manifest_id: praxikon:sys:assessment:manifest:d4d54ed585bb41c9e673d3cf
dataset_version: 2.1.0schema_version 1.4.0
payload_hash_sha256: d4d54ed585bb41c9e673d3cf18beb131a3fbff3ad5ca12bd2dde38fdff81b6e7
assessed_at: 12 August 2026
uncertainty_status: determined

What you are looking at

dataset_version: The release of the knowledge graph this was computed against. A later release can give a different answer, and this line is the only way to see which answer you got at the time.
source_hashes: Per source a fingerprint over our registration of it: the locator, the publication version and the date we looked at it. If that registration moves, the fingerprint moves with it.
payload_hash_sha256: A hash over the whole document. Change one character afterwards and the hash no longer matches, and validation says so.
evaluated_obligation_ids: What the engine did assess. An obligation that is not in this list was not assessed.
uncertainty_status: Whether a conclusion could be drawn here, and if not, what is missing. No score and no percentage: a status with a next step behind it.

Why the same input returns the same bytes

Generating is a pure computation. The same fifteen answers, the same dataset version and the same assessment moment reproduce this document byte for byte, including `manifest_id` and `payload_hash_sha256`. That is why the assessment moment above is fixed and not taken from the server clock.

We do not keep this

The public route is stateless: no account, no server copy of your answers and no archive to fall back on. Archiving is the work of whoever requests it. If you want records kept inside an organisation, that is a separate surface with its own key; it does not run on this public route and there is no self-service for it today.

The full manifest

{
  "manifest_version": "1.1.0",
  "manifest_engine_version": "1.0.0",
  "decision_engine_version": "1.0.0",
  "system_version": "4.2.0",
  "language": "en",
  "assessed_at": "2026-08-12T09:00:00.000Z",
  "effective_at": "2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z",
  "known_at": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
  "roles": [
    "praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer"
  ],
  "intended_purpose": {
    "description": "Screening and ranking job applicants in the first selection round.",
    "annex_iii_domain": "employment",
    "annex_iii_use_case": "emp-4a"
  },
  "eu_nexus": "offered_or_used_in_eu",
  "classification": {
    "result": "high_risk_annex_iii",
    "basis": [
      {
        "rule_id": "scope.eu-nexus",
        "outcome": "met",
        "explanation": "Your answer confirms a possible EU connection.",
        "obligation_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk"
      },
      {
        "rule_id": "annex-iii.listed-purpose",
        "outcome": "met",
        "explanation": "The intended purpose must be linked to a specific use case in Annex III. Selecting only a sector or domain is not enough.",
        "obligation_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk"
      },
      {
        "rule_id": "annex-iii.ai-system",
        "outcome": "met",
        "explanation": "This route classifies AI systems, not a standalone GPAI model.",
        "obligation_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk"
      },
      {
        "rule_id": "annex-iii.article-6-3-filter",
        "outcome": "not_met",
        "explanation": "Article 6(3) can only provide an outcome through a documented, strict assessment. Profiling keeps the system high-risk.",
        "obligation_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk"
      }
    ],
    "open_questions": [],
    "reassessment_triggers": [
      {
        "kind": "control",
        "id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:annex-iii-change-trigger",
        "obligation_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk",
        "label": "Reclassification on purpose or context change",
        "summary": "Reopen classification when intended purpose, use context or system functionality changes materially.",
        "at": null
      },
      {
        "kind": "control",
        "id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-4-periodic-review",
        "obligation_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy",
        "label": "Periodic role and context review",
        "summary": "Check when systems, roles or risks change whether the selected measures remain appropriate.",
        "at": null
      },
      {
        "kind": "deadline",
        "id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk",
        "obligation_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk",
        "label": "Annex III: high-risk AI",
        "summary": null,
        "at": "2027-12-02T00:00:00.000Z"
      },
      {
        "kind": "deadline",
        "id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy",
        "obligation_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy",
        "label": "Article 4: AI literacy",
        "summary": null,
        "at": "2025-02-02T00:00:00.000Z"
      },
      {
        "kind": "dataset_change",
        "id": "praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph",
        "obligation_id": null,
        "label": "New dataset version or revised source",
        "summary": "Recompute this manifest as soon as the dataset version, the schema version or a source fingerprint changes.",
        "at": null
      }
    ]
  },
  "evaluated_obligation_ids": [
    "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk",
    "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-27-fria",
    "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy",
    "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-50-transparency",
    "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai"
  ],
  "obligations": [
    {
      "obligation_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk",
      "slug": "annex-iii-high-risk",
      "label": "Annex III: high-risk AI",
      "applicability": "applies",
      "uncertainty_status": "determined",
      "timing": "future",
      "effective_on": "2027-12-02T00:00:00.000Z",
      "transition_ends_on": null,
      "deadline_at": "2027-12-02T00:00:00.000Z",
      "legal_status": "upcoming",
      "blocking_flags": [],
      "human_page": "https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/annex-iii-high-risk",
      "entity_version": "1.0.0",
      "entity_payload_hash_sha256": "c0afd1789ed393ba3f9ce04205bd74b4831ff0fd58146108fdd8dd08d2f4f6c9"
    },
    {
      "obligation_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy",
      "slug": "article-4-ai-literacy",
      "label": "Article 4: AI literacy",
      "applicability": "applies",
      "uncertainty_status": "determined",
      "timing": "current",
      "effective_on": "2025-02-02T00:00:00.000Z",
      "transition_ends_on": null,
      "deadline_at": "2025-02-02T00:00:00.000Z",
      "legal_status": "applicable",
      "blocking_flags": [],
      "human_page": "https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-4-ai-literacy",
      "entity_version": "2.0.0",
      "entity_payload_hash_sha256": "7a9516670dfca5dd7dcc96ae019e5714f843e20235abd3e9d92b71eb42445ff1"
    }
  ],
  "required_actions": [
    {
      "id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:annex-iii-classify",
      "obligation_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk",
      "label": "Classify the use case and document the outcome",
      "summary": "Assess Article 5, Article 6 and Annex III in that order and document purpose, context and any Article 6(3) exception.",
      "href": null,
      "basis_applicability": "applies"
    },
    {
      "id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-4-measures",
      "obligation_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy",
      "label": "Take role- and context-specific AI literacy measures",
      "summary": "Determine for each role, system and context which combination of instruction, guidance, practice or training is appropriate.",
      "href": null,
      "basis_applicability": "applies"
    }
  ],
  "required_evidence": [
    {
      "id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:annex-iii-classification-record",
      "obligation_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk",
      "label": "Article 6 and Annex III classification record",
      "summary": "Traceable rationale covering intended purpose, Annex III category, Article 6(3) assessment and registration decision.",
      "href": null,
      "basis_applicability": "applies"
    },
    {
      "id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-4-measures-record",
      "obligation_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy",
      "label": "AI literacy measures record",
      "summary": "Versioned record of roles, context, measures, participation or instruction and review moments.",
      "href": null,
      "basis_applicability": "applies"
    }
  ],
  "uncertainty_status": "determined",
  "assessment_input": {
    "actor_role": "deployer",
    "object_type": "ai_system",
    "eu_nexus": "offered_or_used_in_eu",
    "article_5_signal": "none_known",
    "annex_iii_domain": "employment",
    "annex_iii_use_case": "emp-4a",
    "decision_influence": "materially_influences",
    "article_50_scenarios": [
      "none"
    ],
    "article_50_market_date": "not_relevant",
    "direct_interaction_obvious": "not_relevant",
    "public_interest_editorial_control": "not_relevant",
    "fria_context": "none",
    "gpai_union_market": "not_relevant",
    "gpai_market_date": "not_relevant",
    "gpai_open_source_status": "not_relevant"
  },
  "derived_from": {
    "snapshot_id": "praxikon:sys:assessment:implementation-snapshot:3be08a18b328d51023bf056f",
    "snapshot_payload_hash_sha256": "3be08a18b328d51023bf056fee920548f98e24ebda97908f0f492af6cbb4463b"
  },
  "source_snapshot": {
    "dataset_id": "praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph",
    "dataset_version": "2.1.0",
    "schema_version": "1.4.0",
    "last_reviewed_at": "2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z",
    "source_fingerprint_basis": "canonical_url|source_version|verified_at",
    "source_fingerprint_scope": "The source hash covers our record of the source (URL, edition version, verification date) and is not an archive copy or content hash of the external document.",
    "source_hashes": [
      {
        "source_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-ai-literacy-qa",
        "source_version": "updated-2026-07-27",
        "verified_at": "2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z",
        "source_record_hash_sha256": "a07599c1c5af5cb25fbe1a72caecc7f0093326202cea7949a43d7a89c6c7f038"
      },
      {
        "source_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-article-50-guidelines",
        "source_version": "final-2026-07-20",
        "verified_at": "2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z",
        "source_record_hash_sha256": "3c3d066f0294692b398f096861adb89198f3d6062939237a97b35fa9ced4d39d"
      },
      {
        "source_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-gpai-guidelines",
        "source_version": "checked-2026-08-08",
        "verified_at": "2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z",
        "source_record_hash_sha256": "b3691c417d2ea106c7767e1b78bf30f045b0172a4292cb44ba76ff45109de497"
      },
      {
        "source_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689",
        "source_version": "original-oj-2024-07-12",
        "verified_at": "2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z",
        "source_record_hash_sha256": "bf0fca3e1fb47ce58924f6e736d572bb5db3812c3276c0b2891fbf328c42a5c6"
      },
      {
        "source_id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744",
        "source_version": "official-journal-2026-07-24",
        "verified_at": "2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z",
        "source_record_hash_sha256": "17f108dc4eb93b8ff3abf091ab8a6a6e3095ae112229f27ca9a59ded886c7864"
      }
    ]
  },
  "manifest_id": "praxikon:sys:assessment:manifest:d4d54ed585bb41c9e673d3cf",
  "payload_hash_sha256": "d4d54ed585bb41c9e673d3cf18beb131a3fbff3ad5ca12bd2dde38fdff81b6e7"
}

Step 6

Something changes in the rules. What does it do to this record?

The knowledge graph keeps changes as objects of their own, with their own source and their own two dates: when the law moved, and when we knew it. This is the change that touches this case.

Annex III core rules moved to 2 December 2027

The amended application date has been binding law since 27 July 2026.

praxikon:eu:ai-act:change:2026-07-27-annex-iii-date

Binding law since: 27 July 2026
Recorded by us on: 8 August 2026
Touches: Annex III: high-risk AIpraxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk

Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 sets application for Article 6(2) and Annex III on 2 December 2027.

Amended Article 113/official sourcepraxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

Open the object in the explorer

What the impact layer makes of this manifest

The same manifest was laid next to a window between two recorded releases. The outcome is not averaged: the heaviest status among the touched objects is the status of the whole.

Status

review recommended

review_recommended / review_change

264 of the 408 objects that moved touch this manifest, none of them on a field that decides whether, when or by whom a duty must be met. This is our deterministic statement about this document, not a duty arising from the Regulation and not the judgement of a supervisory authority.

The window: 1.1.0to2.0.0
The count: 408 objects moved in this window
264 of those touch this manifest
0 of those require this record to be reassessed
Material change in this window: no

What honestly belongs with this

The window above is the only recorded comparison that exists today, and that comparison is a namespace migration: the keys moved, the law did not. That is exactly why the outcome counts so many touched objects and not a single material field. Once there is a second substantive release, this layer will do what it was built for.

And the second thing: nothing is delivered. The impact layer computes and answers a call, but there is no subscription, no queue and no sender. Anyone who wants an alert fetches it themselves today.

Step 7

The source underneath all of it

Every statement above hangs off an official source with a publication version and a date on which we looked at it. These are the sources this case rests on.

AI literacy questions and answers

European Commission

praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-ai-literacy-qa

Publication version: updated-2026-07-27
Checked by us on: 8 August 2026
Source fingerprint: a07599c1c5af5cb25fbe1a72caecc7f0093326202cea7949a43d7a89c6c7f038Present as a fingerprint in the manifest

Open the official source

Guidelines on Article 50

European Commission

praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-article-50-guidelines

Publication version: final-2026-07-20
Checked by us on: 8 August 2026
Source fingerprint: 3c3d066f0294692b398f096861adb89198f3d6062939237a97b35fa9ced4d39dPresent as a fingerprint in the manifest

Open the official source

Guidelines for GPAI model providers

European Commission

praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-gpai-guidelines

Publication version: checked-2026-08-08
Checked by us on: 8 August 2026
Source fingerprint: b3691c417d2ea106c7767e1b78bf30f045b0172a4292cb44ba76ff45109de497Present as a fingerprint in the manifest

Open the official source

EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

European Parliament and Council

praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

Publication version: original-oj-2024-07-12
Checked by us on: 8 August 2026
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
Source fingerprint: bf0fca3e1fb47ce58924f6e736d572bb5db3812c3276c0b2891fbf328c42a5c6Present as a fingerprint in the manifest

Open the official source

Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

European Parliament and Council

praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

Publication version: official-journal-2026-07-24
Checked by us on: 8 August 2026
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj
Source fingerprint: 17f108dc4eb93b8ff3abf091ab8a6a6e3095ae112229f27ca9a59ded886c7864Present as a fingerprint in the manifest

Open the official source

What that fingerprint is and is not

The source hash covers our registration of the source: the locator, the publication version and the date of the check. It is not an archive copy and not a hash of the external document itself. The official source always prevails over our summary of it.

What this page does not do

No score, no percentage and no certificate. Uncertainty here is a status with a next step, never a number that suggests certainty.
No statement about how a supervisory authority will weigh a case. That weighing is not in this data.
No advice about your own situation. This case is a case; your answers produce your own outcome.
No committed service level on the public interface. What does exist is stated in the API status response.

The same route with your own answers

The assessment asks the same fifteen questions and produces the same record, without an account and without an email address. The result stays on your device.

Start the assessment See the four levels of the assessment Read what Praxikon is and why these layers sit the way they do

Execution

Record the classification in an AI register

A classification without a register and ownership is not demonstrable. Embed AI guides classification, register and reassessment in a fixed approach.

See the Embed AI approach