⚠️
STATIC ANALYSIS — Limited confidence
Code and documentation were analysed statically — the audit engine did not execute the system live. Behavioural findings derive from the (synthetic, for this demo) session traces provided, not from live execution.
Some verdicts rely on heuristics and may not reflect runtime behaviour.
For a full technical dossier with executable evidence and SHA-256 seal,
contact contact@factnotebook.com.
1. 🧨 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FINAL VERDICT
⚠️ PARTIAL TECHNICAL ALIGNMENT (49/100 — threshold: 75)
📌 DECISION SYNTHESIS
| Layer |
Value |
Detail |
| Regulatory verdict |
❌ EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT FOR HIGH-RISK DEPLOYMENT |
Critical gate article deficiency: Art. 14, Art. 9 |
| Regulatory Final Score (gates applied) |
48.89/100 |
🔴 Insufficient (threshold: 75) · After gate kill-switches, coverage factor, and proof factor |
| DOC↔CODE Sincerity |
🟢 TRUSTED (100.0%) |
Declared vs implemented alignment |
| Recommended decision |
Remediation required before deployment in regulated high-risk context. |
|
Key finding : No sufficient technical evidence identified within the analyzed scope for: Article 14, Article 12, Article 9, Article 26, Article 13, Article 73, Article 11, Article 25.
Algorithmic sincerity analysis performed on 08/06/2026
📊 KEY INDICATORS (KPIs)
This report does not only produce a score. It produces verifiable technical evidence, re-executable tests, and a cryptographically sealed dossier.
| Metric |
Value |
Meaning |
| Technical signals extracted |
1135 |
Facts collected from source code |
| Maturity score |
46 checkpoints |
Articles 9–15 EU AI Act (Annex III) |
| Controls Failing Verification |
27 |
Active evidence of control absence (not just missing evidence) |
| Evidence Gaps (NOT OBSERVED) |
133 |
No evidence found in audit scope — does not assert absence |
| Regulatory Final Score (gates applied) |
49 / 100 |
🔴 Insufficient · After gate kill-switches, coverage factor, and proof factor |
| Unsupported Documentation Ratio |
12.76% |
🟡 WARNING |
Interpretation: EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT — Gate article deficiency (Art. 14, Art. 9). Remediation required before high-risk deployment.
🔥 TOP 3 BUSINESS RISKS
- REGULATORY: Regulatory exposure increased due to critical deficiencies under Article 14 (human oversight). Evidence gaps and low confidence scores (0.1) for Périmètre des outils de l'agent indicate insufficient controls to prevent agent over-privilege, despite the system being classified as a library. The deployer may face obligations that are not addressed.
- OPERATIONAL: Deployment approval risk — critical gate articles below evidence threshold. Compliance score of 48.89/100 and skeleton ratio of 12.76% indicate that key evidence for human oversight (Article 14) is missing or incomplete, potentially blocking market placement or requiring costly remediation.
- REPUTATIONAL: Technical audit trail insufficient for due diligence by enterprise customers or potential acquirers requiring AI Act conformity evidence. The reliance on static fallbacks and low confidence scores undermines trust in the system's compliance posture.
🎯 RECOMMENDED DECISION
❌ EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT — Gate article deficiency (Art. 14, Art. 9). Remediation required before high-risk deployment.
- Immediate action : Priority remediation on Art. 14, Art. 9 before deployment. A high maturity score does not override a gate article deficiency.
- Next step : Technical architecture review (see Section 7).