Skip to main content
Read this first. The EU AI Act places obligations on you — the provider or deployer of an AI system — not on your tooling. No product makes you compliant, and Guardway does not claim to. This page maps Guardway capabilities to the articles they support, so your compliance team can cite concrete technical controls as evidence inside your own compliance programme. Where Guardway does not help, this page says so.

How to read this page

Each section names an article, states what it requires in one line, lists the Guardway capabilities that produce supporting evidence, and — where relevant — states the gap. Capabilities link to their own documentation; nothing below is aspirational.

Article 9 — Risk management system

Requires an iterative, lifecycle-long process of identifying, estimating and mitigating the risks of a high-risk AI system. Gap, stated plainly: Guardway evidences operational risk management of deployed systems. Article 9 also covers design-time risk analysis of the model itself (training choices, foreseeable misuse analysis), which is outside what a gateway can observe.

Article 10 — Data and data governance

Requires appropriate data-governance practices, in particular for personal data reaching the system. Gap, stated plainly: Article 10 is primarily about training, validation and testing data. Guardway governs runtime traffic; it has no visibility into how a model was trained. Cite it for the personal-data-in-operation half of the article, not the dataset-governance half.

Article 12 — Record-keeping

Requires automatic recording of events (logs) over the system’s lifetime. Retention is split by design: gateway-local logs live in storage you own and manage (apply your own database or volume lifecycle — the gateway does not enforce a retention schedule); cloud-side raw request events age out on a rolling 30-day window, with only aggregates retained beyond it.

Article 14 — Human oversight

Requires that systems can be effectively overseen by natural persons. Gap, stated plainly: Guardway has no human-in-the-loop approval workflow (a pending request waiting for a person to approve it). Oversight here means observe, alert, and revoke — not pre-approval.

Article 15 — Accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity

Requires resilience against errors, faults, and attempts to exploit the system.

Article 50 — Transparency

Requires that people are informed when they interact with an AI system. Guardway’s agent discovery flags agents whose system instructions direct them to conceal their AI identity or impersonate a human — the configuration shape most likely to put a deployer in breach of Article 50. The finding names the pattern matched, never the instruction text itself.

Machine-readable mappings

Agent findings carry OWASP ASI Top 10 category tags (ASI01ASI10) in both the API and the dashboard. An explicit per-category coverage statement (which categories are assessed, with what limitations) is returned by the discovery summary API; surfacing it in the dashboard is planned. Mappings to OWASP LLM Top 10, MITRE ATLAS and ISO/EU control identifiers as machine-readable tags are on the roadmap and are not shipped today.

Residency, stated plainly

The Guardway control plane runs in a single US region today. Prompts and completions stay on your gateway by default (v0.4.41+), but configuration, administrative audit logs and aggregate telemetry are processed in the US. If your reading of your obligations requires EU-resident metadata, raise it with us before you buy — do not assume.
See also the ISO/IEC 42001 mapping and Privacy and Security for the underlying data boundary.