All nine Annex IV sections as an actual fill-in template, not just the header list: what the regulator is checking for, the most common way providers under-document it, and a one-line prompt to start writing.
If you build or deploy a high-risk AI system under the EU AI Act, Article 11 requires a technical documentation file structured around Annex IV. The obligation for high-risk providers applied from 2 August 2026 (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Article 113); GPAI-model documentation runs on a separate track with its own dates. If you're not yet sure your system is in scope, start with the plain-English explainer before filling this in.
The free templates already circulating (a Word doc with nine headers copied from the regulation) hand you the shape but not the substance. Staring at a blank "describe the methods and steps performed for the development of the AI system" doesn't tell you what counts as enough. Below is the same nine-section skeleton, but each section carries what's actually being checked, where providers typically leave a gap, and a prompt block you can copy and fill in directly. No signup, no gated download.
What the regulator checks: purpose, provider vs. deployer identity, intended users, how it's delivered (SaaS, API, on-prem, embedded), what hardware or software it interacts with, versioning, and what the user is shown or told.
System name and current version: [ ] Provider: [ ] Deployer(s): [ ] Purpose (one sentence, what it does and for whom): [ ] Delivery model (SaaS / API / on-prem / embedded): [ ] Hardware/software it interacts with (list each integration point): [ ] What the end user is shown or told, and what decision (if any) they make based on it: [ ]
What the regulator checks: architecture, third-party components and how they're used, the design choices and reasoning behind them, what the system is optimized for, and what's changed since initial development.
Pipeline / architecture (each stage, in order): [ ] Third-party models or components used, with provider and version pinned: [ ] Key design choice and why (pick the one decision that most shapes behavior): [ ] What the system optimizes for, and the tradeoff that implies: [ ] Approaches considered and rejected, and why: [ ] Changes since first build (pointer to Section 6 log): [ ]
What the regulator checks: capabilities and limitations, accuracy across different groups of users, foreseeable ways the system could cause harm to health, safety, or fundamental rights, and what a deployer needs to understand to use the output correctly.
Known capabilities and limitations: [ ] Accuracy/robustness test, dated, with methodology and result (not just a percentage): [ ] Foreseeable harm scenario and who it affects: [ ] What a deployer must understand to use the output correctly (a specific instruction, not "use good judgment"): [ ] Mitigation in place for the foreseeable harm above (a mechanism, not a policy statement): [ ]
What the regulator checks: not the raw numbers, but the justification for why these specific metrics are the right ones for this system.
Metric(s) reported: [ ] Why this metric fits this system's actual failure cost (what a false positive vs. false negative means here): [ ] Current value and measurement date: [ ] Held-out or test set used, and how it avoids leakage: [ ] Re-measurement cadence: [ ]
What the regulator checks: a structured record of risks identified, how they were assessed, and what mitigations were applied, tied to actual testing evidence rather than a general risk statement.
Risk ID: [ ] Description: [ ] Likelihood / Impact: [ ] / [ ] Evidence (test or scan that surfaced it, dated): [ ] Mitigation applied: [ ] Status: [ ] Owner: [ ] Next review date: [ ]
What the regulator checks: what changed, when, and why, across the system's life after deployment, kept current rather than reconstructed retroactively.
Version: [ ] Date: [ ] What changed: [ ] Why (evidence, incident, or finding that triggered it): [ ]
What the regulator checks: which harmonised standard you followed, if one exists and applies; if none does, what alternative approach you took and why it's adequate.
Harmonised standard applied (if one exists and covers this system): [ ] If none applies: alternative framework used, and why it's adequate: [ ] Where this is referenced in the risk register (Section 5): [ ]
What the regulator checks: a signed legal attestation that the system conforms to the Act's requirements, referencing the rest of the technical file as its basis. This is a process step, not a technical artifact; no scan or generator produces the signature itself.
Provider (legal entity): [ ] System name and version: [ ] Applicable Annex III high-risk category (if any): [ ] Named signatory with authority to attest conformity: [ ] Date signed: [ ] Reference: this technical documentation file as evidentiary basis
What the regulator checks: how the system will be monitored after deployment, what's tracked, how often, and what triggers a response, an actual mechanism rather than an intention.
What's monitored (metric or test): [ ] Cadence (how often it runs): [ ] Threshold that triggers a response: [ ] What happens when it triggers, and who owns the response: [ ] Where incident/change data feeds back into Section 6: [ ]
Sections 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are mostly narrative and judgment calls: intended purpose, metric rationale, standards sign-off, the legal declaration. Sections 3, 5, 6, and 9 are different in kind, they're asking for evidence, dated findings, a real risk register, an actual change log, a monitoring mechanism that runs on a schedule. A template gets you the skeleton for all nine. It doesn't generate the evidence for the second group; that has to come from testing that actually happened.
If you have Sentinel Scan (or similar) results sitting in a JSON file, we'll map them directly into Section 2/3/5/6/9 of this structure instead of you writing it by hand (pricing coming soon) (single vs multi-system), delivered within 24 hours.
We're validating demand for a guided intake that turns a short questionnaire into a first Annex IV draft, one-time purchase, no subscription. It doesn't exist yet; we're building it if there's real demand.
Sources cited: EU AI Act Annex IV, artificialintelligenceact.eu (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689); Article 113 for the phased application dates.