Check · Regulatory content verification
We hold a document — human- or AI-authored — against the requirements of the regulation it must answer to, and ground every objection in a citable source. You get a founded opinion of where it stands, not a verdict.
Case · Regulatory dossier
EU AI ActCitation not found in source of record
“Reg. (EU) 2016/679, Art. 9(4)” — no match in the cited corpus
How Check works
We break the regulation into its individual requirements and test the document against each one — nothing is graded against a vague overall standard.
When a citation does not hold, we show it does not exist in the source of record — a demonstrable gap, not an opinion about whether the claim is true.
Deleting the paragraph a requirement applied to is not compliance. We track it as evasion and never render it as resolved.
Check reports objections with the evidence behind them and where the document stands. It does not certify, and it does not rule on the law.
Two exports
Same evidence, two audiences — so the party that certifies a document is never the party that told the author how to write it.
For the auditor or a third party
The objections and their grounding, with nothing that tells the author how to rewrite. The party that certifies can review without ever having advised on the draft.
For whoever revises the document
The same objections, paired with what each one is missing and where — so the team editing the document knows exactly what to address.
Who it is for
Check is horizontal — judicial filings, environmental and mining reports, food-safety dossiers, and more. Two kinds of teams rely on it.
Run Check at volume across the documents you assess for clients. You keep the judgment and sign the opinion; we supply the evidence underneath it. Priced in packs.
Run Check on the filing that matters before it reaches a regulator, court, or board. One-off when you need it, or on subscription for continuous review.
What you get
Each document you submit is a Case: the regulation broken into requirements, the document mapped against each one, and every objection anchored to the exact place it applies and the source it cites.
Where a claim rests on a citation that is not in the source of record, we can show it — “this citation does not exist in that corpus” — a demonstrable finding, never a guess about the truth.
What you send out, you can stand behind.
Methodology
Grounding a citation is three steps: we extract the exact string and where it sits, resolve it to a candidate in the source of record, and verify membership by hash. A clean miss on a well-formed citation is a demonstrable objection.
When resolution is ambiguous, we say so and lower our confidence — we never call a citation false when it might simply live outside the corpus in scope. The vocabulary is asymmetric on purpose: we can show what is missing, and we do not claim what we cannot show.
Hold your next filing against the regulation that governs it, with every objection traced to its source.