Is Annex IV required for all AI systems?

No. Annex IV technical documentation is associated with high-risk AI systems under the EU AI Act. Classification depends on intended purpose and context.

Why do system-type templates matter?

Audits focus on specific decision points, inputs, risks, and evidence. Credit, claims, KYC/AML, and HR differ in what reviewers expect you to measure and retain.

What’s the most common reason Annex IV packs fail review?

They’re not tied to evidence. Reviewers need clear boundaries and an exportable trail (versions, approvals, logs, monitoring outcomes) that supports each claim.

Do we need to include a one-page summary?

It’s not mandatory, but it’s highly effective: teams forward it internally and auditors use it to orient quickly.

How often should we update the documentation?

Treat it as living documentation: update on releases, model/policy changes, incidents, and monitoring findings.

Can we keep sensitive data out of exports?

Yes. Use redaction rules and hashed references where appropriate, and document the approach and access controls as part of the evidence pack.

Templates

Annex IV templates by system type

Choose the template that matches the deliverable your team must produce: credit underwriting, claims triage, KYC/AML, or HR screening.

Last updated: Dec 16, 2025 · Version v1.0 · Fictional sample. Not legal advice.

Pick your system type Request full package

Report an issue: /contact

Context

What this is (and when you need it)

A practical Annex IV template library keyed to the workflows auditors actually review.

These templates are designed for “panic-search” moments: when a team is told to produce Annex IV-style documentation and needs a minimum viable, reviewable draft fast.

System type matters. The evidence reviewers expect differs by workflow: credit decisions emphasize thresholds and segment monitoring; claims triage emphasizes reviewer UX and sensitive attachments; KYC/AML emphasizes reproducible versions across rules/watchlists; HR screening emphasizes boundaries and fairness-oriented evaluation evidence.

You need it when

You’re preparing a technical documentation package for reviewers.
You need documentation tied to evidence you can export and verify.
You’re standardizing monitoring, oversight, and logging across teams.

Common failure mode

A “generic” Annex IV doc that doesn’t match the workflow and has no evidence pointers (versions, approvals, logs, monitoring outcomes) reviewers can verify.

Checklist

What good looks like

The minimum acceptance criteria that make Annex IV defensible.

Decision boundaries are explicit (advisory vs automatic; “do not use for”).
Inputs and data governance are documented (sources, retention, access controls).
Human oversight triggers exist (approval queues, escalation, overrides).
Monitoring and sampling policy exists (signals, thresholds, owners, incident workflow).
Logging is exportable and integrity-protected (manifest + checksums).
Each claim in the doc points to evidence that can be exported on demand.

Differences

What changes by system type

Focus on inputs, risks, and evidence — not legal theory.

Credit underwriting

Decision boundaries, segment monitoring, and clear evidence for thresholds and adverse outcomes.

Performance by segment + drift triggers
Human review triggers for uncertain or high-impact decisions

Claims triage

Reviewer UX, sensitive attachments, and evidence for fraud flags and customer impact (delays, complaints).

False positive/negative cost model
Redaction rules for document exports

KYC / AML

Reproducibility across watchlists/rules/versions, escalation SLAs, and defensible handling of false positives vs false negatives.

Case management and escalation evidence
Change control for rules/watchlists/models

HR screening

Boundaries (“recommendation only”), fairness-oriented evaluation evidence, and oversight records for high-impact outcomes.

Evaluation + threshold governance
Disclosure and review queue evidence (where applicable)

Templates

Choose your system type

Each page includes an HTML preview plus an editable download.

Credit underwriting

Decision boundaries, segment monitoring, adverse action evidence prompts.

Open template page

Insurance claims triage

Routing, fraud flags, reviewer UX, and sensitive attachment handling.

Open template page

KYC / AML

Screening, alert triage, escalations, and reproducible evidence by version.

Open template page

HR screening

Rankings/scoring, fairness evidence prompts, disclosures, oversight records.

Open template page

Preview

Template preview (excerpt)

This is the forwardable “one-page summary” section you can share internally.

ONE_PAGE_SUMMARY :: EXCERPT

## One-page Annex IV summary (forwardable)
- Intended purpose:
- Decision(s) supported or automated:
- Human oversight checkpoints:
- Data sources (top 5):
- Primary harms & mitigations (top 5):
- Monitoring signals & thresholds:
- Logging & retention policy:
- Evidence export location (manifest / bundle ID):

KLA Mapping

How KLA generates it (Govern / Measure / Prove)

Turn templates into exportable, verifiable evidence bundles.

Govern

Policy-as-code checkpoints that block or require review for high-risk actions.
Versioned change control for model/prompt/policy/workflow updates.

Measure

Risk-tiered sampling reviews (baseline + burst rules).
Near-miss tracking (blocked / nearly blocked steps) as a measurable control signal.

Prove

Tamper-proof, append-only audit trail with 7+ year retention language where required.
Evidence Room export bundles (manifest + checksums) for independent verification.

Evidence pack checklist Post-market monitoring plan Log retention policy

FAQ

FAQs

Short answers, written for review.

Download

Download the Annex IV template pack

Get the full Annex IV structure (ZIP) and compare with a sanitized Evidence Room export.

Download Annex IV template pack